Follow
In our introduction to this series last week, we accepted The Sacrifice Challenge, which is a gauntlet, as it were, that has been thrown down by Roman Catholics who believe that the “incense” and “pure offering” of Malachi 1:11 can only refer to the Roman Catholic sacrifice of the Mass. “All the … Fathers … of the primitive ages, teach,” says the Douay Catechism, “that the mass is the self same sacrifice of bread and wine” to which Malachi referred. According to the Douay Catechism, the Sacrifice of the Mass (in which the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ and then offered as a sacrifice to God for our sins) is the “pure offering” prophesied by Malachi.
The Douay Catechism‘s universal affirmation, i.e., “All the Fathers … teach…”, can be disproved by providing a single Church Father who disagreed. If one disagreed, then “all” of them did not agree. As we noted last week, Tertullian denied what the Douay Catechism affirms. The “pure offering” of Malachi 1:11 was not the sacrifice of the Mass, but was “simple prayer from a pure conscience” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 1). As we shall demonstrate in week 4, Tertullian stated this repeatedly, as did many other Church Fathers with him.
Producing a single Church Father who disagreed with the Douay Catechism is sufficient to disprove its universal affirmation, but we will go further than that. We deny that any of the Early Church Fathers believed that Rome’s Mass—the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ—was the “pure offering” of Malachi 1:11. In fact, it was not until the Rise of Roman Catholicism toward the end of the 4th Century that Malachi’s prophecy began to be seen as a sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood. Before Roman Catholicism came on the scene, the Early Church saw the Lord’s Supper as a memorial meal, and saw praise and thanks as the sacrifice of the New Covenant, in accordance with Romans 12:1 and Hebrews 13:15:
“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” (Romans 12:1)
“By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.” (Hebrews 13:15)
It is in the light of Romans 12:1 and Hebrews 13:15 that the Early Church’s understanding of Malachi 1:11 can be seen most clearly, as the Early Church Fathers testify.
There are, however, traps into which we must not stumble on the way. In our introduction last week, we highlighted three potential traps in The Sacrifice Challenge, and we will restate them here (and will do so with each installment) by way of reminder:
1) The Patristic writers of the Nicæan and ante-Nicæn era employed several sacrificial terms in close proximity to the Lord’s Supper and Malachi 1:11, 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. Context will keep us out of this trap.
2) The word Eucharist is a transliteration of the Greek word, “ευχαριστια,” and is translated as “thanksgiving.” Thus, the “sacrifice of the Eucharist” does not of necessity imply a sacrifice of “bread,” but rather a sacrifice of thanks. Translating the word “ευχαριστια” as “thanksgiving” instead of transliterating it as “Eucharist” will help keep out of this trap.
3) When Jesus celebrated the Passover with His disciples, He instituted the Lord’s Supper, but He also offered praise and thanks and a hymn to His Father (Matthew 26:26-30, Mark 14:22-26). When a Church Father says that Jesus instituted “the oblation of the New Covenant” at the Last Supper, he is not of necessity referring to the bread and wine, but to the thanks and praise, which the Early Church saw as the “pure offering” of Malachi 1:11. By maintaining the distinction between what Jesus offered to His Father and what He offered to His disciples we will avoid stumbling into the third trap.
As we proceed, we will see just how important it is to avoid these three traps, and we will also see how well Rome has laid them for those who have ventured into The Sacrifice Challenge before us. The traps are easily avoided, and the Scriptures as well as the testimony of the Church Fathers themselves provide the data we need when we evaluate the Early Church’s position on Malachi 1:11.
Before we begin, and for the sake of a reference point, here is Malachi 1:10-11, the verse upon which Rome’s Mass sacrifice is presumed to turn:
“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)
Throughout this series, we largely focus on Church Fathers who explicitly cite Malachi 1:11, but we occasionally cite those who identified the sacrifice of the New Covenant for us (i.e., “the sacrifice of praise … the fruit of our lips giving thanks…” (Hebrews 13:15) and “present your bodies a living sacrifice” (Romans 12:1)), even if they did not cite Malachi 1:11. As always, when a source is available online, we provide hyperlinks so that our readers may investigate these matters for themselves.
Let us now proceed with our first installment. This week we cover the Didache and Clement of Rome. In the former, Rome has the author make the bread and wine the sacrifice, even as the context points to prayers of thanks as the sacrifice offered at the Lord’s Supper. In the latter, Clement was referring to tithes that had been brought forward by the presbyters rather than bread and wine that had been sacrificed by them. Both mention bread and wine, and the Didache explicitly invokes Malachi 1:11, but neither author offers bread and wine to God as a sacrifice in the New Covenant.
THE DIDACHE (circa 100 A.D.)
The Didache, which gets its name from the Greek rendering of the first word of its title, Teaching (Didache) of the Twelve Apostles, is the earliest known Patristic application of Malachi 1:11. The Didache is used by Rome to prove the early recognition of the Sacrifice of the Mass, as shown by the Catholic Answers web page:
“Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]” (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]). (Catholic Answers, The Sacrifice of the Mass)
We note that in this rendering, Rome immediately deploys two of its traps simultaneously, rendering the Didache in such a way that “give thanks” (και ευχαριστησατε) is rendered “offer the Eucharist” so that the word “sacrifice” is then assumed to refer to the bread, rather than to the thanks that is given. When we employ a faithful translation of the text, rather than Rome’s transliteration of it, the emphasis, as we shall see, changes from the bread as the sacrifice to the thanksgiving as the sacrifice:
“But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations” (Didache, chapter 14 (Translated by M.B. Riddle. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.) )
[n.b.: Those who wish to see the Greek interlinear of the Didache for reference may do so here.]
As we proceed through the Church Fathers, we shall see that this theme of confessing faults—so that the sacrifice of prayer and praise may be pure—emerges quite regularly. For example, in chapter 2 of his epistle, another Church Father, Barnabas, explains that the Lord “needs neither sacrifices, nor burnt-offerings, nor oblations,” and further that “fine flour” and “incense” are abominable to Him. This completely rules out the bread and Roman Catholic incense as the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11. Instead of these, the Lord requires a “human oblation” from the heart, which is to say, a clean conscience:
“But this rather I commanded them, Let no one of you cherish any evil in his heart against his neighbour.” [Zechariah 8:17] (Epistle of Barnabas, chapter 2)
Lactantius, likewise, when he wrote of the sacrifice of the New Covenant, referred to praise, prayers and hymns offered with a clear conscience after one has reconciled with his neighbor:
“Now let us speak briefly concerning sacrifice itself. … 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. … Therefore the chief ceremonial in the worship of God is praise from the mouth … . … For we ought to sacrifice to God in word; … let him make amends, and let him confess that the evil has happened to him on account of his faults;” (Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, Book VI, chapter 25)
When seen in this light, it is clear that the Early Church saw prayer offered from a clean conscience as the sacrifice, rather than bread offered from a clean conscience. Tertullian confirms this understanding explicitly when he says that the “pure offering” of Malachi 1:11 is “simple prayer from a pure conscience” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 1).
Even J. N. D. Kelly, the Protestant historian to whom Catholic Answers resorts for an objective reading (as we noted last week), rejects the Catholic Answers reading of the Didache here. He writes:
“If we inquire what the sacrifice was supposed to consist in, the Didache for its part provides no clear answer” (Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 196).
We agree with Kelly that the Didache does not identify the bread as the sacrifice, but we do not agree that the Didache is unclear on it. It is really not so difficult to identify the sacrifice that is in view, for the Didache plainly identifies it for us.
In chapter 4, the Didache instructs that we must not come forward for prayer “with an evil conscience.” Taken together with chapter 14, it is clear that the Didache sees the prayer of thanksgiving, not the bread, as the “pure offering”:
“In the church you shall acknowledge your transgressions, and you shall not come near for your prayer with an evil conscience. …But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned.” (Didache, chapters 4 and 14.)
That a man must confess his transgressions to “his fellow” with whom he is “at variance” is a reference to Matthew 5:24, which instructs us to “first be reconciled to thy brother,” and only then are we to come near “and offer thy gift.” It is only after we have been reconciled to our brother that we are to offer prayers to the Lord, for such prayers must be offered with a clean conscience. Thus, the “sacrifice” in the Didache, is “simple prayer from a pure conscience,” to which Tertullian, Barnabas, Lactantius, and many other Church Fathers plainly attest.
We notice as well that when the Didache gives instructions for celebrating the Lord’s Supper, the instruction is not how to offer bread and wine to the Lord, but how to offer thanks to the Lord regarding the bread and wine:
“Now concerning the Thanksgiving, thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father,… And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father…” (Didache, chapter 9)
The Didache then goes on in Chapter 10, demonstrating the centrality of the prayer of thanks, and showing that the purpose of the meal is to elicit the thanks that is offered, but is not the offering itself. Note well that in the Didache, the “ευχαριστια,” that is, the “thanksgiving,” not only precedes the breaking of bread but goes on after the bread and wine have been consumed. After the food is gone and everyone has had their fill, the Didache invites anyone to come forward and give thanks, so long as they have repented, so that the prayers may be offered with “a clean conscience,” for “you shall not come near for your prayer with an evil conscience”:
“But after you are filled, thus give thanks: ‘We thank You, holy Father, … You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You; … Before all things we thank You … ‘. If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maran atha. Amen. But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.” (Didache, chapter 10).
It is for the offering of prayers that confession of sins is necessary (not for the “offering” of bread), and the offering of prayers continues as long as the participants are willing to come forward and offer them. Thanks is given before the bread is broken. Thanks is given after the bread is broken. Thanks is given “after you are filled” with bread, and then the prophets are invited to give thanks as long as they desire. Bread is broken. Thanks is offered. The Early Church understood that it is not the bread but rather our prayers of thanksgiving that are offered as the sacrifice of Malachi 1:11.
Before we leave the Didache, we must first highlight just how precisely the author maintained his categories throughout, and thereby helps us avoid the third trap in The Sacrifice Challenge. The third trap, as noted above, is the assumption that the bread and wine are the only things that could possibly have been offered by the Lord at the Last Supper, even though the Scripture makes no mention of Jesus offering bread to His Father. The Scriptural accounts clearly have Jesus giving thanks, praise and a hymn to His Father and giving bread to the disciples. The author of the Didache maintains those same categories here. At one point the author refers to “the Thanksgiving” in such a way that it is clear that he is referring to the bread and wine rather than to prayers, but in this one case, “the Eucharist” is given to the participants, not to God:
“But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving [Eucharist], but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, ‘Give not that which is holy to the dogs.’ [Matthew 7:6]” (Didache, chapter 9)
When the bread is in view, the Eucharist must not be given to an unclean person. The significance of this becomes apparent when we see how the author speaks when prayers are in view. When the prayers are in view, the Eucharist must not be given to God from an unclean conscience:
“In the church you shall acknowledge your transgressions, and you shall not come near for your prayer with an evil conscience.” (Didache, chapter 4)
“But after you are filled, thus give thanks: … If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maran atha. Amen. But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.” (Didache, chapter 10)
But when the bread is in view, the Eucharist must not be given to an unclean person. Thus does the author of the Didache maintain his Scriptural categories. Just as Jesus did at the Last Supper, bread is given to disciples, and thanks is given to God. In this light, we end our discussion on the Didache by revisiting Rome’s evidence. When we read chapter 14 in its natural context, we see clearly that the sacrifice of Malachi 1:11 was not bread, but prayers of thanksgiving from a clean conscience:
“But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.” (Didache, chapter 14.)
“POPE” CLEMENT I OF ROME (died 99 A.D.)
We continue now with “Pope” Clement of Rome, not because he invoked Malachi 1:11, but because he is used by Rome to prove the Sacrifice of the Mass. For example, Catholic Answers cites Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians to prove that the Mass was a sacrifice in the Early Church:
“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices.” (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]).” (Catholic Answers, The Sacrifice of the Mass)
The context of this letter is that there has been a schism in the church at Corinth, and Clement is distressed that their testimony is now being compromised. The schism has apparently been caused by a rebellion against the presbyters:
“But now reflect who those are that have perverted you, and lessened the renown of your far-famed brotherly love. It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful, and unworthy of your Christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most steadfast and ancient church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters.” (Clement, To the Corinthians, chapter 47)
Clement’s concern is that these rebels have ejected innocent men from the episcopate. In that context, he says that it is no small offense to remove without cause “those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices.” What is notable in this sentence used by Rome, is that Clement does not use the word “sacrifice” (θυσία). Here are his actual words:
“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly (μέμπτως) and holily (ὁσίως) have offered the gifts (δῶρα).”
The word “gifts,” (δῶρα), as used by Clement, is the same term used to refer to the gift offerings contributed into the Temple treasury for the poor (Luke 21:1-4). As we shall see later in this study, the early church included with its worship the collection of tithes and first fruits for the poor, and we see no need to understand Clement’s defense of the presbyters’ innocence in any other way. Notice that Paul in the New Testament, and Samuel in the Old, both maintained their own innocence in precisely these terms:
“Behold, here I am: witness against me before the LORD, and before his anointed: whose ox have I taken? or whose ass have I taken? or whom have I defrauded? whom have I oppressed? or of whose hand have I received any bribe to blind mine eyes therewith? and I will restore it you.” (1 Samuel 12:3)
“I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.” (Acts 20:33-35)
“And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.” (2 Corinthians 11:9)
“Did I make a gain of you by any of them whom I sent unto you?” (2 Corinthians 12:17)
Clement’s concern is not, therefore, that the deposed elders had been faithful in their sacrifice of bread and wine, but that they were in fact honorable men in their handling of the tithes. We notice in several other translations of this same section of Clement’s epistle that the sense of the text is the faithful and honest execution of the presbyters’ duties:
“For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop’s office unblamably and holily.” (Lightfoot’s translation)
“For it will be no small sin in us if we depose from the office of bishop those who blamelessly and piously have made the offerings.” (Hoole’s translation)
“For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” (Roberts-Donaldson translation)
This sense is further reinforced by Clement elsewhere in the very same chapter. He expresses his justifiable indignation that men of “excellent behaviour” have been expelled, who have fulfilled their ministry blamelessly and honorably, and had not been using the office for personal gain:
“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them [the Apostles], or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry … But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.” (Clement, To the Corinthians, chapter 44)
Thus, the context of chapter 44 of Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians is very far removed from a reference to the Lord’s Supper, and provides no support for Rome’s Mass Sacrifice of bread and wine. His concern, rather, is that men who have served honestly and honorably have been subjected to an unjust dismissal.
But this is not to say that Clement makes no mention of the body and blood of Christ. In chapter 49, Clement invokes the Lord’s body and blood as evidence of the great love He has toward His people. He insists that such love ought to rule out such seditious behavior by those who are the objects of His affection:
“Love admits of no schisms: love gives rise to no seditions: love does all things in harmony. By love have all the elect of God been made perfect; without love nothing is well-pleasing to God. In love has the Lord taken us to Himself. On account of the love He bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls.” (Clement, To the Corinthians, chapter 49)
If Clement wanted to insist that the deposed presbyters be restored to their offices so that they could perpetuate the Mass sacrifice, this was his chance. Without presbyters in place, could the Mass sacrifice continue? Likewise, if he wanted to insist that the rebels be restored to God by having the priest offer the Mass Sacrifice for them, this was his opportunity. Who could offer the Mass sacrifice but the unlawfully deposed presbyters? But Clement does not take this path. Instead, he says that the only sacrifice the Lord desires is that of prayer from a pure conscience.
We know this because Clement continues in the next chapter, instructing the Corinthians to acknowledge their transgressions and repent: “Let us pray, therefore, and implore of His mercy” (chapter 50), and “Let us therefore implore forgiveness for all those transgressions which … we have committed, … For it is better that a man should acknowledge his transgressions than that he should harden his heart” (chapter 51). In the next chapter, he explains why prayer and repentance is the only reasonable response:
“
The Lord, brethren, stands in need of nothing; and He desires nothing of any one except that confession be made to Him. ‘For,’ says the elect David, ‘I will confess unto the Lord; and that will please Him more than a young bullock that has horns and hoofs. Let the poor see it, and be glad.’ And again he says, ‘Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay your vows unto the Most High. And call upon me in the day of your trouble: I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me.’ For ‘the sacrifice of God is a broken spirit.'”(Clement, To the Corinthians, chapter 52)
Just when Clement should have, by Rome’s reasoning, emphasized the need to perpetuate the Lord’s sacrifice at the Mass, he instead insists that the Lord needs no such sacrifices. Clement conspicuously bypass an opportunity to instruct the offending brethren to go to the bishop to ask him to offer a sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood for their transgressions. Rather, he prescribes a “sacrifice of praise,” and insists that the Lord is not the least bit interested in any other kind.
We close this section on Clement by revisiting an earlier section of his epistle to the Corinthians, when he was telling the rebels how Moses had dealt with the sedition of Korah (Numbers 16). He reminded them that there had been an order under the Old Covenant—there was a high priest, priests and Levites, as well as laymen. That was at a time when there were “offerings at the appointed times” and the “the daily sacrifices” were offered “in Jerusalem only” (Clement, To the Corinthians, chapters 40-41 & 43). Just so, the Apostles had established “bishops and deacons” in the New Covenant order (Clement, To the Corinthians, chapters 42). What, therefore, were they to offer to God in the New Covenant order in which there were bishops and deacons to replace the priests and Levites? They were to offer prayers of thanks with a clean conscience:
“Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him.” (Clement, To the Corinthians, chapter 41)
Just as we saw with Tertullian, Barnabas and Lactantius in our introduction last week, and in the Didache this week, the sacrifice of the New Covenant, in accordance with Hebrews 13:15, is “simple prayer from a pure conscience.”
“By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.” (Hebrews 13:15)
There was no Sacrifice of the Mass in the Early Church because Roman Catholicism did not yet exist. Try as Rome might, the Didache and Clement provide no help for her sacrifice of bread and wine in the Early Church. As we have demonstrated here, the Didache actually supports a sacrifice of praise and thanks from a pure conscience, as does Clement of Rome. Neither provides any indication that bread and wine are to be sacrificed to God under the New Covenant.
We will continue our analysis of Malachi 1:11 and The Sacrifice Challenge next week with Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr.
Tim, incredible article. Here is my thinking. The offering of the bread has been proven to be a lie, making transubstantiation and impossibility, making the sacrifice of the Mass an impossibility for salvation Summitt, making Roman Catholicism a lie and false church. Tim, you have proven no bread offered, and the rest of their synergistic salvation system fails, because it all depends on this one thing. The faulty axiom of the fallen human nature receiving grace thru re offering the bread is dead. Rebirth, a new nature, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer by faith thru the regeneration by th Holy Spirit thru the Word, all a work of God. The sacrifice of the bread is dead. Thanks Tim.
9 And now I pray you, [j]pray before God that he may have mercy upon us: this hath been by your means: will he regard [k]your persons, saith the Lord of hosts?
10 Who is there even among you [l]that would shut the doors, and kindle not fire on mine altar in vain? I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand.
11 For from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, my Name is [m]great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered unto my Name, and a pure offering: for my Name is great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.
12 But ye have polluted it, in that ye say, [n]The table of the Lord is polluted, and the fruit thereof even his meat is not to be regarded.
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.
Thanks, Walt,
This is an opportune time to say that “what the Early Church Fathers taught” is never a substitute for “what the Bible says.” Thanks for this solid exegesis.
My work on the Fathers is, of course, merely to answer the Sacrifice Challenge, not to find Scriptural truth. That is to be found in the Scriptures alone.
Thanks for this comment.
Tim
Tim, is this section of Malachi speaking of the sacrifices offered up by th ed Jews were not theirbest and consequently the calling of the gentiles who offer up sacrifices from a circumcised heart of thanksgiving and praise, a broken and contrite heart? K
Tim,
I pulled it from the 1599 Geneva. I read through it and thought it would be good for our antichristian counter parts to have an opportunity to see a reformed view. I know they will not care about any reformed teaching, unfortunately, as there is nothing more important than one Pope who may have never even read the bible cover to cover to give his infallible decision, but it is always good to get it on the record for those who pass by from time to time doing research.
The audio sermon on antichrist was very interesting, if you got a chance to listen to it, as it broadens who is antichrist to those who deny Christ by their “PRACTICE” not just their testimony.
Wow, imagine, that turns every Roman Catholic adherent into an antichrist because they deny Christ in practice, but yet proclaim Him to have come in the flesh. I never thought about that antichrist definition before, but it certainly makes biblical sense to me as all of Scripture really separates those who are faithful in both law and testimony, or practice of the Lord’s specific commands, authorized examples or principles drawn from necessary inference.
Think of all the antichrists around the world who have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof (2Tim.3:5)? The scripture says, “from such turn away”. The 1599 Geneva says:
“2 Timothy 3:5 We must not dally with such men as resist the truth not of simple ignorance, but of a perverse mind, (which thing appeareth by their fruits which he painteth out here lively) but we must rather turn away from them.”
Could they be the antichrists that our friends here want to say is not the Pope, but only those Muslims or Jews who deny Christ by their words and practice? What about those who testify Christ is come in the flesh, but deny him in practice?
“But some man might say, Thou hast the faith, and I have works: show me thy faith out of thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God: thou doest well: the devils also believe it, and tremble. But wilt thou understand, O thou vain man, that the faith which is without works, is dead?” (Jam.2:18-20)
Imagine what true saving faith means in belief if you deny the sufficiency of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection?
The devils believe, and perhaps they too are antichrist by their works. Transubstantiation?
Read Roman Catholic doctrine, believe the opposite, arrive at biblical truth. Tim, you have meticuosly and literally shown that Satan through Roman Catholicism has reversed the doctrines of scripture. Whether reversing the sacrifice of thanksgiving with the bread, justification and sanctification, Mary as bondslave with queen, not of yourselves with merit, Holy Spirit with church, Christ with Pope, and inserting the church between the Son and the Spirit, we have seen Rome lead men to hell. Im hoping you will take all these articles and put them in a book so that God might put it in the hands of all Catholics. It is the truth that will set men free. God bless
Tim, this may be incidental, but the quote from Clement ” He gave his blood for us” he is speaking of a sacrifice that already happened. Also “He bore” past tense.
Tim,
I have exposed your theory claiming the Papacy is a post 350 A.D. innovation to be hogwash. I could end all discussion there as you harnessed your entire argument on this date. But, for some reason, I will pretend that your theory is not already up in smoke and dance around with you on the Eucharist ( I think I pretty much proved your 350 business to be hogwash on the Marian doctrines too ).
““… can be disproved by providing a single Church Father who disagreed. If one disagreed, then “all” of them did not agree. As we noted last week, Tertullian denied …”.
I deny Tertullian to be a Church Father.
“it was not until… the end of the 4th Century that Malachi’s prophecy began to be seen as a sacrifice …”
So? When did Gen 3:15 come to be seen as messianic? Did the Jews see it as such? Did all the Fathers or only some?
You go on;
“that Malachi’s prophecy began to be seen as a sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood.”
However, you also say, “Rome has the author make the bread and wine the sacrifice, ”
Which is it Tim? Does Rome off the Body and Blood of Christ or bread and wine? Did bread and wine hang on the cross? All through your scribblings, you repeatedly make this same confused assertion.
” Thus, the “sacrifice of the Eucharist” does not of necessity imply a sacrifice of “bread,” but rather a sacrifice of thanks.”
It never implies a sacrifice of bread. If it does use that term, it means the appearances of bread for the Body of Christ.
Of course the word “sacrifice” can be used in a non-liturgical sense. Still in the Mass, the laity do add their sacrifices of praise to that of the priest’s sacrifice.
I thought you knew that at Fatima, Mary asked the kids to make sacrifices for sinners. ( Maybe you forgot ).
Your references to Romans and Hebrews are nice but irrelevant to the issue.
Remember. God established the sacrificial system. While there is indeed a sacrifice of praise ( my lips are calves ), that doesn’t deny the physical sacrifices. Hosea 6:6 ” I desire mercy and not sacrifice” does not mean “I desire mercy and not praise”.
Because God abhors sacrifices of lambs and goats from hypocrites does not nullify the obligation to perform physical sacrifices by the priests.
Let’s cut to the chase and look at this statement you made;
” When Jesus celebrated the Passover with His disciples, He instituted the Lord’s Supper, but He also offered praise and thanks and a hymn to His Father (Matthew 26:26-30, Mark 14:22-26).”
Fine so far. But then you say out,
” When a Church Father says that Jesus instituted “the oblation of the New Covenant” at the Last Supper, he is not of necessity referring to the bread and wine…”.
You are so 100% right on the money Tim! He was referring to His Body and Blood.
“This is Blood of the New Covenant…”. Jesus was establishing a sacrifice.
As for the rest of you article, neither Kevin nor I read, so your erudition is wasted on bozos like us.
90% of what you write is totally acceptable to a Catholic. Surely you know Catholics are supposed to go to Confession before Communion if they have a dirty conscience. Again, you wasted your energy writing. I won’t bother commenting on what I don’t disagree with.
As a Calvinist, you should not be claiming that Malachi’s “Pure Sacrifice” is the praise of men, even justified men.
Luther feared saying Mass as his own conscience told him all of his efforts were corrupted with sin, even his good actions.
Your praise Tim, is just so much filth. Menstrual rags. No way is it the pure oblation offered by the gentiles from the sun’s rising to setting.
And notice, Jews don’t offer this oblation yet are quite able to offer praise of lips and heart aren’t they?
Okay, that is enough for now.
Jim, you objected,
It seems you ought rather ask this question of the Douay Catechism, which wrote,
You’re objecting to my characterization of the Mass as a sacrifice of bread and wine, but the Douay Catechism itself describes the Mass as a sacrifice of bread and wine. I understand that you think the bread is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, but that is not what the question was. The question is whether the Church Fathers taught that the Lord’s Supper was a sacrifice of bread and wine. If you believe they did teach that it was, all you need to do is provide the evidence. Don’t pontificate, substantiate.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Did I, or did I not qualify my statement with “appearances of bread and wine”?
Yes or no, does the Catholic Church believe we sacrifice bread and wine?
Yes or no.
Jim,
The Douay Catechism says the sacrifice of Malachi 1:11 is Rome’s sacrifice of bread and wine.
What we are discussing here is whether or not the Early Church believed that the bread and the wine were the sacrifice of Malachi 1:11. You want to turn this into a discussion on transubstantiation, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about whether the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper are the sacrifice of the New Covenant.
Did I, or did I not, cite the Douay Catechism?
You may also want to research whether the Tomb of the 18 Martyrs in Zaragossa was from the early or late 4th century. I’ll be interested to hear the results of your research.
Thanks,
Tim
JIM–
TIM says–“You want to turn this into a discussion on transubstantiation, but that is not what we are talking about.”
But he said at the very beginning of this post “According to the Douay Catechism, the Sacrifice of the Mass (in which the bread and wine are TRANSUBSTANTIATED into the body and blood of Christ and then offered as a sacrifice to God for our sins) is the “pure offering” prophesied by Malachi.”
Looks to me like he invited the discussion with his own words.
I kinda see what you mean by you saying Tim is playing cat and mouse with you.
“Did bread and wine hang on the cross” Wecshould be asking you that. Its the RC that says the bread of the supper is propitious for sins. Not us. The point Jim, the bread was never offered for sins, and the scripture and early fathers say as much. Therefore every other Roman Catholic doctrine falls. Transubstantiaion, meriting increase, etc. If the bread wasnt offered, then the bread isnt flesh, and the axiom that grace comes thru fallen nature is wrong. Grace comes thr the Word by the work of the Spirit.
Tim,
Was the OT Shewbread the Body of Christ? Was the Manna?
Were they shadows or types? Of what? How so?
Tim, Was the Passover Lamb the Christ? Or a type?
The OT shadows were to give way to a reality, right?
Or were they just to give way?
Please,how is the Shewbread fulfilled today? How is your sacrifice of Malachi fulfilled today?
Jim, the Jews werent thankful because they were infused with sanctifying grace, but that God passed over them, forensic.
A shadow must have a solid reality behind it. Not smoke that disappears.
Quick Tim! Answer before Kevin breaks in and hijacks the discussion over to pedophilia or some such unrelated issue.
At the Last Supper, Jeus does use the word used in the OT for a memeorial sacrifice, yes?
He says, ” Do”. This was used for sacrifices, yes again?
He calls the cup His Blood “that is pored out” or “shed”. Yea or nay?
St. Paul says, “we have an altar…”, right?
He compares the Christian meal to that of sacrifices to demons, right?
Because of communion not propitiation
Jim, ” does the Catholic church believe they sacrifice bread and wine?” Why does it matter what they believe, they do it.
I just discovered a new Protestant sight from Swan called Steadfast Lutherans. I have been trolling about there and 5 minutes ago discovered this handy bit of spiritual advice from the same bozo who gave the world JBFA.
As I know you like to quote Luther, here is a good one for you;
“””Almost every night when I wake up the devil is there and wants to dispute with me. I have come to this conclusion: When the argument that the Christian is without the law and above the law doesn’t help, I instantly chase him away with a fart…”.
LW 54: Table Talk No. 469
As I figure you have regular visitations form Old Scratch too, you should have no trouble chasing him away simply by opening your stupid mouth and belching out a fart.
Jim, ya wasnt Luther awful, he brought back to Christians the assurance and peace of the believer, and by simply believing the promise we have eternal life. Put a kink in works righteouness, huh.
For those interested in the full quote from the Douay Catechism :
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.
Bob, we have all read this before. Its a lie. Melchizadek brough to wine and bread out, not sacrificed it. Christ from the order of Melchizadek who was without geneology. The whole point of Hebrews is the Aaronic priesthood was done away with. Christ one sacrifice was perfect, put sin away, and is never to be repeated or continued. The word is epiphax, which means once. Incidentally, your priests die like the Aaronic priests, they dont qualify. Christ is high priest forever, who Hebrews says is able to save to the uttermost. There are no more sacrifices for sin. And there is no forgiveness Hebrews says without the shedding of blood. So Rome’s unbloody sacrifice is of no effect for that reason, and because one can do it a million times and not have enough grace for heaven. So Rome has a savior still on the cross whose imperfect sacrifice cant save them. But Christians have been made perfect by the one sacrifice that Hebrews 10:14 says perfected us. Tim has clearly shown that bread was not sacrificed anf their was no sacrifices of new law in scripture. No law can justify a man. There is no law of the gospel. Christ fulfilled all the requirements of the law, for those who are trusting in Him alone who walk by the Spirit. He lived the law in our place. Law cant save you, none of it. The law only brought condemnation, wrath, death, because of sin. Paul is clear, any attempt to be justified by any law is condemnation, even grace enabled works. Galatians 2:16. No admixture of gospel and law is accepted in justification. Jesus is not a kinder gentler Moses with an easier law. He is the fulfillment of all righteouness, and He is just and justifier of those who have faith alone in Him. It is crucial you understand this. Hope you are enjoying the holidays. K
KEVIN–
You said: “There is no law of the gospel.”
Christ IS the Gospel. And he gave us a new commandment.
What happens if you don’t obey it?
Bob, Jesus said in John 6:29 this is the work of God that you believe, that everyone who looks on Son and believes in Him has etrnal life. No sacramental meaning here. How can the bread be the sacrifice for the Apostles sin, He had not yet shed His blood yet on the cross. Verse 47 says he who believes in Him has eternal life. So how can one who posess eternal life by simple faith in John 6 have to go through a continuing sacrament to obtain eternal life. Again no sacramental meaning here. There is a direct parallel between believing in the first discouse and eating His flesh. Notice Hecsays flesh and not body and divinity. Jesus uses metaphor for believing. But notice those of unbelief did not understand the metaphor but understood it physically like Rome. Finally Jesus flat out told them, the flesh understanding is of no use to you, it is the Spirit that gives life. Notice Jesus gave his flesh for the life of the world. This was Jesus sacrifice, not his body in the bread. John 6 is not sacrificial language refering to the bread and the cup of the Eucharist. Since Jesus says that all those who belive He will raise up on the last day, we understand the metaphor of eating and drinking. To take this metaphorical exprsssion as a reference to the bread and cup of the Eucharist makes the sacrament necessary for salvation, thus contradicting Jesus emphasis on faith. Second Jesus point that those who consume Him he will raise up on the lastcday, proves that He does not think that eating his flesh and drinking his blood themselves imeddiately confer resurection or immortality. But that is precisely what Catholic theology of the Eucharist maintains, the name being medicine of immortality. He says believing confers immortality. Lastly Jesus warning that thecSpirit gives life and the flesh is of no use warns against sacramental meaning. The flesh here is not the flesh of the incarnation that died on the cross, which has all the benefit for us. K
KEVIN–
You said: “Verse 47 says he who believes in Him has eternal life.”
Jesus also said Mat 10:38 “And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.”
And that was before the Cross, too.
I believe Him when He says: “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.
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.
He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.”
KEVIN–
It is by faith that we believe Jesus’ Word. We understand this spiritually and not carnally, because as he says, the flesh profits nothing. His Word’s are spirit and life. And His Spirit is real, just like His Body and Blood is real. He truly is present when He says “This is my Body, This is my Blood”. He gave this sacrament to His disciples to use in place of the Passover seder meal. The Lamb’s Flesh is to be eaten, the Lamb’s Blood is to be shed for forgiveness of sins. Jesus is our Pascal Lamb. The Lamb of God who John the Baptist proclaimed.
In the liturgy of the Eucharist, we offer our tithes, alms, our prayers of praise and thanksgiving, bread, wine, and our very lives to God. We ask Him by the power of the Holy Spirit to make them for us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord. And He in turn gives us that perfect and acceptable offering which is His Body and His Blood to eat and drink so that He may abide in us and we abide in Him.
But that is only if you believe in Him, Kevin.
So which is it Bob? If Jesus says believing results in eternal life can we believe Him? It seems to me it would be important to understand verses like he who doesnt pick up his cross is not worthy of Him in context, right? Paul got the gospel directly from Jesus, so we go directly to him to understand the command verses.They are descriptive , not perscriptive. You continue to deny that God justifies the ungodly man, who does not work, but believes Romans 4:5. You must understand Jesus statements in the gospel are resetting the absolute perfection necessary from the law. Law was never intended to justify a man. You are without excuse Bob. Paul makes this clear. He says for if a law had been given to impart life, then righteouness would have been based on the law. He says the law became a tudor to show us our sinfulness and drive us to the gospel, the righteouness that comes by faith alone in Christ alone. The medieval church missed it, they thought Christ gave them the oppurtunity to accumulate that righteouness thru sacraments, instead of seeing Christ lived the law in our place, fulfill all righteouness. Its thru His obedience we are justified Romans 5:19. When the Jews celebrated the passover, they werent celebrating the infusion of grace, but that God passed over them. They deserved the same plight as the Egyptians, but God did not destroy them, but passesd over the. Forensic. The reason faith alone justifies us is because it receives Christ our righteouness. Our obedience is simply the result of our faith, not the tool to merit more grace. K
Thanks Bob.
Thanks, Bob. Those who are interested in this quote from the Douay Catechism may also see it in the first installment of this series, Their Praise was Their Sacrifice (part 1), where it was also quoted in full.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
350 A,D. huh?
Yes, Jim. Latter part of the 4th century.
I found this particular comment on the Sarcophagus of the 18 martyrs quite interesting, and it turns out, quite common:
A rough translation is:
“For a long time I wanted to see in the scene representing the Assumption of the Virgin, but now want to see the reception of a soul in Paradise by the divine hand.”
In other words, people see what they want (or are told) to see.
Thanks,
Tim
Huh?!?
Tim! No way. It doesn’t mean that at all.
Tim, how important is the Papacy to the existence of the (Roman ) Catholic Church?
Wouldn’t you say it is the number one issue? I mean, if you have a Papcy, you have the Romish Church, right?
When did other churches start recognizing Rome? You know, to settle disputes and such. When did Rome and her Bishop start exercising her teaching authority? Do we have a list of bishops of the Church at Jerusalem or Alexandria or Corinth or Antioch or …? Why do we know so much about the Roman See but nothing about the succession at Carthage or Philadelphia, Sardis, Ephesus, etc. etc.?
Nothing about the Eucharist, Mary, prayers for the dead, etc. etc. before 350? Nothing?
All the heathen innovations popped up after the persecutions stopped and not before, Tim? Doesn’t that strike you as weird?
Ever read Origen’s arguments contra Celsus’s charge that Christians melded pagan myths into the faith?
Christians kept the faith and opted to die to keep it pure before your 350 date. Yet later, when they had nobody forcing them to, they chose to go into apostasy, yes?
Say “Goodnight Tim”.
Jim, do you agree with Svenson and White all the Mary bunk started in knostic writings?
No. I believe you started with knostic writings.
Jim, These are some very good questions:
If you mean, when did other churches recognize that there was a Church in Rome, well, that’s about mid-1st century. If you mean, when did other churches start recognizing Rome’s Primacy, that’s another question. You seem to believe that the existence of a Christian Church in the 1st century is evidence of Roman Catholicism. Were it so easy, Cardinal Newman would not have had to develop the “Development of Doctrine” doctrine. Nor would Morris have had to concede that early evidence of Roman Catholicism is “invisible” except to the eye of faith:
The fact is, Rome’s authority was not recognized until the end of the 4th Century. For example, after a ruling by “pope” Melchiades, who was then Bishop of Rome, the Donatists appealed to the ecumenical Council of Arles, because that council had to resolve a matter which was judged by a Roman (regional) Synod. After the Donatists “took pains to have the matter again more carefully examined and settled at Arles,” where the matter was resolved. (Augustine, Letter 43, chapter 2.4) The question for you is, if you ask the pope a matter of doctrine, and he resolves it at a Synod in Rome, why then appeal to another council for final resolution?
Yes, exactly.
That’s a good question.
Jim, you don’t even have a reliable list of Bishops of Rome. As even you acknowledge, Linus was the first bishop of Rome, but some of your coreligionists think Peter was. But here’s a list of Bishops of Antioch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Antioch
At least we know Peter was the first bishop of that one, right? Does that mean Antioch is the sole Apostolic See?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
“The fact is, Rome’s authority was not recognized until the end of the 4th Century.”
I have already demonstrated otherwise. About 4 time over the past weeks. You are not going to give me the run around with your game playing.
“Jim, you don’t even have a reliable list of Bishops of Rome. As even you acknowledge, Linus was the first bishop of Rome, but some of your coreligionists think Peter was. ”
I could open the copy of “The Catholic Controversy” right here by my computer and check it out to make sure, but I thing Francis de Sales addresses the case of Linus and Clement being bishops, maybe even at the same time as he was. I can’t remember for sure. I don’t care enough to open the book and keep going over the same stuff.
Are you aware the more than one bishop can exist together? Ever hear of an auxiliary bishop?
Your nonsense about the early Eucharist being only verbal or mental praise and thanksgiving, sans. Body and Blood of Christ makes me wonder if you ever actually attended Mass when you were a Catholic.
Same with you and Bozo’s hang up on the words. ” bread and wine” as if they mean we sacrifice bread and wine instead of the Body and Blood of Christ under those species.
I recall reading once about different theories of sacrifice played with by theologians after the Deformers stated challenging the Mass. One or some of them thought they had to find an actual destruction of something in each Mass and came up with some bizarre ( but interesting ) theories. Some said the bread was destroyed in the change. Others said the Host was destroyed when eaten by the priest ( I actually heard a priest say this once ).
Other theologians jumped on these theories for implying we sacrifice bread ( as Bozo really thinks ). Other said the destruction of the Host does not have any negative effect on the Glorified Christ.
Just yesterday, on Steadfast Lutherans I read a statement by Luther in which he actually felt bad for having sacrificed ( killed ) Christ over and over again for years as a Catholic priest.
While the Church does leave some leeway in explaining just how the Mass is a sacrifice, there are some theories that are patently wrong.
The Catholic Church does not now nor ever has taught that bread saves us. Only you two nuts promote that silliness.
I seem to recall, about a year ago, going into great detail explaining to the buffoon who does 90% of your PR work my favorite explanation. I see it had zero effect on him and that is why I would warn any other Catholics posting here not to get embroiled in a discussion with Kevin Balony Fallony. It would be nothing more than a case of pearls before swine.
By the way, here are some great tid-bit about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary ( In Partu ) before 350 A.D.
The Odes of Solomon and the Ascension of Isaiah both speak of Mary experiencing not labor pains. And they are both written in the 1st century.
I probably have already wasted my breath telling you this one but I will do it again.
Jesus accused the Jews of killing the good guys from Abel to Zachary. You know the passage as Prots like to use it to establish canon. Trouble is, there is some confusion over the two OT men named Zacharia. I assume you know what I am referring to.
Origen had the solution. He said it was the NT Zachary. The Jews stoned him for allowing Mary ( post partum of Jesus ) into the court of the virgins in the temple. He knew she was still intact bodily.
Tim, I repeatedly offered you the chance to recalibrate your dating of 350. You stuck with it. That is your downfall as the Church was up and running well before that date.
But I think you will just move the goal post around a bit. You have too much invested in this lie.
Jim, You wrote,
If you have demonstrated that the Donatists and the emperor did not appeal to the council of Arles (314 A.D.) after a ruling by Melchiades, the Bishop of Rome in 313 A.D., and that Augustine did not believe Arles had settled the matter but that Melchiades had, please let me know where you demonstrated that, so I can read it. Your allegation was that people were appealing to the Bishop of Rome to resolve disputes prior to 350 A.D., yet the bishop of Rome had “resolved a dispute,” and the disputing party and the emperor went over his head and took the matter to a council. If you have explained why that proves the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in resolving doctrinal disputes, I must have missed it. Also, if you have demonstrated that Cyprian of Carthage had not “settle the matter” of the erring pope Stephen of Rome in 256 A.D., because he wrongly “boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter,” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 74, chapters 6 and 17), I must have missed that, too.
You also wrote,
This is something that I find quite remarkable in my discussions with Roman Catholics. They think that if Protestants don’t believe Roman Catholic doctrines, it must be because they don’t understand them. I know quite well that Roman Catholicism thinks that she offers the body and blood of Jesus on the altar at every Mass. I have cited the Roman Catechism on that repeatedly. I also know that the Mass Sacrifice was wholly foreign to the early church, as the data from the Early Church Fathers clearly shows.
For some reason, you seem to believe that my argument against the Mass Sacrifice in the Early Church Fathers is an argument that Rome does not currently think that she offers the body and blood as a sacrifice in the form of bread. It’s like saying, “How can Tim say the Early Church didn’t offer a Mass Sacrifice. Why, I just went to Mass this morning, and saw it for myself!” Well, you saw the mass sacrifice, certainly. Just as certainly, it is a novelty of the late 4th century.
You continued,
Yes, you do. You continued,
Yes, I did, and I will continue to do so. You continued,
See, this is what I am talking about. You seem to think that because I don’t believe Roman Catholicism existed before that latter part of the 4th century, that I must not believe that the Church existed before the latter part of the 4th century, or that there were no martyrs before the latter part of the 4th century, or that there was no bishop in Rome before the latter part of the 4th century.
There was a Church in Rome before the latter part of the 4th century, and it had a bishop, but it was not Catholic. There was a Catholic Church before the latter part of the 4th century, but it was not Roman.
Roman Catholicism is a novelty of the late 4th century. Prior to that, the Church that Jesus Christ founded was up and running, and had been for 300 years. It just wasn’t Roman Catholic.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob said to Jim ” I kinda see what you said Tim’s playin cat and mouse” Bob, how is it you and Jim never have a substantive argument against the article, but pety drop in shots. If you cant make an argument against the sacrifice of the bread being in scripture or the early fathers, which we clearly know is the case, then why would transubstantiation matter. The Reformers, and I would add Tim in there, have clearly shown the Mass is an invention of man’s brain which undermines jbfa, and will send men to hell. So, the only reason to continue to defend it , attend it, and adore it would be, hmm, idolatry. Bob, John 16 says that Christ left Christians the Spirit, who will guide us in ALL things. Not the Mass, but the Spirit. God is Spirit, and we must worship Him in Spirit and truth. No graven bread.
Bozo,
JBFA is an invention of man’s brain that undermines the Mass. You have it backwards like you probably have your pants on backwards right now.
Jim, thats got to be the record amount of names you have called me. You can call me anything you want Jim, I still love you. ” if its by grace it is no longer by works, or grace is no longer grace. “
Tim,
I feel a bit embarrassed to show you this video, but it comes from a blog that you provided a link to above. The video is from a Roman Catholic who believes that praying the Rosary to Mary will fend of antichrist, and this Roman Catholic is just a pure public testimony of who truly insane the religion and its blind followers have become. If you have not seen this video from one of Rome’s modern self described Prophets, you must watch it as it demonstrates what praying to Mary can do to people who really get themselves wrapped up in worshiping evil spirits. This guy is so crazy it is sad, but as a Roman Catholic adherent I can see why he believes what he teaches.
Like every Roman Catholic I have ever met, they all are looking for signs and wonders in everything to identify antichrist, whether it be a Jew going to arise out of Europe, or Nero in the first century prior to 70AD, or this “Prophet” who looks to antichrist driving a Cadillac.
http://thisblogisratedpgforpropheticguidance.wordpress.com/2014/09/06/video-the-antichrist-drives-a-cadillac/
Bob quoted:
“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.”
Ladies and gentlemen, this is damnable heresy. You will go to hell into everlasting torment if you believe and practice this doctrine of death. I’m sorry to be so blunt and matter of fact, but there is NOTHING in the Bible to leads any reader to this heresy. This is a damnable heresy taught by Antichrist.
Flee from this teaching. Avoid this teaching. Do whatever you can to come out of her my people, and be not partaker of her sins! This is abomination and idolatry.
Bob, thank you for sharing this with the readers! It is clear.
Walt, and God’s people said amen!
My pleasure.
Jim, you have to pick up a copy of Allisons book Roman Catholic theology and practice. His treatment of Marian ego is second to none. One of his points is the assumption of Mary is false because the death of Christians is disembodiment not embodiment. Souls are in expectation of glorified embodiment. Therefore the bodily assumption of Mary violates scripture’s teaching. K
Bob, said ” the Lamb’s blood is to be shed for our sins” It has been shed. It is finished. Let Him off the cross Bob, He is risen! He is in heaven having accomplished eternal redemption. An imperfect savior stillnon the altar cant save you Bob. You missed the memo, He was resurected for our justification. Romans 4:25. We have been, have been, reconcilled, justified. He didnt come to make us saveable with our help. He redeemed us. Sad His perfect sacrifice is of no effect to you, you have do do His imperfect sacrifice over and over and over. The flesh profits nothing. Your continuous imperfectvsacrament undermines His perfect work and faith. But these are old roads, all the best.
Bob, one more thing to connsider. Rome has two faulty axioms. First, the nature grace innerconnection, that grace can come through fallen human nature, created things, physical things like oil, water, Priest, Mary etc. So Rome’s over emphasis on the law as preparation for grace is wrong. Grace comes through the lWord by the agency of the Spirit. AEvangelical theology rejects this axiom. Second Evangelical theology rejects the church as the prolongation of the incarnation thru the acts of the church. Christ’s unique finished work cant be coopted by the church. Calvin rightly read in Ephesians that Christ cleanses his church daily, we were left with the Spirit to guide us in all things. Therefore Evangelical theology rejects the synergistic elevation of nature into the divine. When Adam and Eve sinned they were bannedcfrom the garden, desolate in fallen creation. When Christ returns creation will be destroyed not perfected. There will be a new heavens and earth. So Rome’s understanding that fallen human nature can receive grace is faulty. Being born again is a supernatural work of God. Rome thinks that sin only impaired nature but it can still receive grace. The scripture says we are dead in sin, a nd only thru the quickening work of the Spirit can we believe. Human reason apart from apart from the Word and Spirit cant understand the gospel. Again, God didnt infuse gracein
Into the Jews at passover, He passed over them, as He does with us who believe. Therefore the ongoing sacramental as being necessary for salvation Jesus words reject in John 6. His complete emphasis on faith, his metaphorical explaining of coming and believing, and His insistence that the Spirit gives life and the words He spoke were Spirit clearly negate any sacramental understanding. Thanks
KEVIN–
You said: “His insistence that the Spirit gives life and the words He spoke were Spirit clearly negate any sacramental understanding.”
No, Kevin. His insistence that the Spirit gives life and the words He spoke were Spirit clearly make it sacramental. Of course you don’t believe in sacraments. Baptists prefer instead the word “ordinance”, practices ordained by Christ to be permanently observed by the church. If it’s just an ordinance, it can’t give life. That is why you don’t have an altar in your church building. All you have is a baptismal. And you only believe baptism to be just an ordinance as well. You do it just because Christ said to do it. There is no efficacy in baptism, you just go through the motions by obedience. There is no life given through the sacrament, just “observing the ordinance”.
Bob said ” its just an ordinance, it can’t give life’ Methodist huh? The bible says the Spirit gives life Bob, not a sacrament. Faith comes through hearing the Word of God Romans 10:17, and salvation comes by grace thru faith, not of yourselves, an not of works. Ephesians 2:8. Your axiom is showing Bob, and its not a Methodist one, its fully Roman Catholic. The Reformers were critical of Rome because they had destroyed the sacraments, increasing the number beyond what scripture calls for, and making them merit for the strong instead of grace for the weak. And Bob, I am not a baptist, I am Reformed and attend a bible church. We take communion every week. Its a supper at a table, not a sacrifice on an altar. We do it in commemoration and memorial of a finished sacrifice, blood already shed for our sins. We give thanks and praise for a salvation we already possess. In our church He is Lord and Savior, not eternal victim who can’t seem to get off the cross or the alter to save anyone. Know what I’m saying? It is finished! Tetelestai, one word in greek. I will no longer be engaging you, because this is just old stuff. One last question Bob, why are you earning your salvation through doing the sacraments of the new law when Paul is crystal clear if its by works its no longer by grace? You see Bob, God will ONLY justify an ungodly man, apart from works, by faith alone in Christ alone, and not a righteous man who is earning more righteousness each time he does a sacrament. For if righteousness comes thru the law, the gospel is void. Only one way to God. And Rome aint it. God bless you in the new year. But New Year brings change, and I will not be addressing you or Jim or Ck anymore. We have beat it in the ground, and have suffered Tim much. All the best to you. K
KEVIN–
You said: “But New Year brings change, and I will not be addressing you or Jim or Ck anymore. We have beat it in the ground, and have suffered Tim much. All the best to you. K”
Really? We’ll see won’t we? New Years resolutions were made to be broken. Or maybe it’s just another ordinance to be observed. I’ll leave you with one more play from the Methodist playbook: (pssst–hey Walt. Stick this in your pipe and smoke it.)
The Great Thanksgiving
United Methodist Word and Table I
The Lord be with you.
And also with you.
Lift up your hearts.
We lift them up to the Lord.
Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
It is right to give our thanks and praise.
It is right, and a good and joyful thing,
always and everywhere(Malachi 1:11)to give thanks to you,
Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
You formed us in your image and breathed into us the breath of life.
When we turned away, and our love failed, your love remained steadfast.
You delivered us from captivity, made covenant to be our sovereign God,
and spoke to us through your prophets.
And so, with your people on earth and all the company of heaven,
we praise your name and join their unending hymn:
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.
Holy are you, and blessed is your Son Jesus Christ.
Your Spirit anointed him to preach good news to the poor,
to proclaim release to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
and to announce that the time had come
when you would save your people.
He healed the sick, fed the hungry, and ate with sinners.
By the baptism of his suffering, death, and resurrection
you gave birth to your Church,
delivered us from slavery to sin and death,
and made with us a new covenant by water and the spirit.
When the Lord Jesus ascended he promised to be with us always,
in the power of your Word and Holy Spirit.
On the night in which he gave himself up for us,
Our Lord Jesus took bread, gave thanks to you, broke the bread
gave it to his disciples, and said:
“Take, eat; this is my body which is given for you.
Do this in remembrance of me.”
Likewise, when the supper was over, he took the cup,
gave thanks to you, gave it to his disciples, and said:
“Drink from this, all of you,
this is my blood of the new covenant,
poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
And so, in remembrance of these your mighty acts in Jesus Christ,
we offer ourselves in praise and thanksgiving
as a holy and living sacrifice,
in union with Christ’s offering for us,
as we proclaim the mystery of faith:
Christ has died;
Christ is risen;
Christ will come again.
Pour out your Holy Spirit on us gathered here,
and on these gifts of bread and wine.
Make them be for us the body and blood of Christ,
that we may be for the world the body of Christ,
redeemed by his blood.
By your Spirit make us one with Christ,
one with each other,
and one in ministry to all the world,
until Christ comes in final victory
and we feast at his heavenly banquet.
Through your Son Jesus Christ,
with your Holy Spirit in your Holy Church,
all honor and glory is yours, Almighty Father,
now and forever.
The Lord’s Prayer
And now, as our savior Christ has taught us, let us pray:
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed by thy name,
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory,
forever. Amen.
The Breaking of the Bread
The Sharing of the Cup
Because there is one loaf,
we, though we be many, are one body,
for we all partake of the one loaf.
The bread which we break,
it is a means of sharing in the body of Christ!
And the cup over which we give thanks,
it is a means of sharing
in the outpoured blood of Christ!
http://www.revneal.org/communionlit1.html
Bob,
Thanks for providing the text from the United Methodist Word and Table. Something worth highlighting in the text you provided is that the people offer their praise and thanksgiving prior to the words of consecration (or what Rome would call Transubstantiation). That is, when they offer their sacrifice of praise in union with the sacrifice Christ offered for us, they are not offering transubstantiated bread and wine with their prayers, nor to they appear to be offering regular bread and wine either. What we will find in the Early Church Fathers is just that—the Church offered prayers and thanksgiving for the first fruits of the earth and the tithes and thanks for Christ’s sacrifice for us. Then after the words of consecration, the bread is exhibited and offered and fed to the people as symbols of the body and blood of Christ. At no point is bread given or offered to God.
But in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), the order is reversed. The words of consecration are spoken first, and once the bread and wine are said to be the body and blood of Christ, the bread and wine are offered to God as a sacrifice along with the prayers of the people. Here are the words from the GIRM:
This may seem to be a small difference, but the implications separate you from Rome and Rome from you. In the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucaristia, John Paul II basically said the differences are non-negotiable, and because of the difference in order, you may not partake of their Eucharist, and Catholics may not partake of yours:
The irony is that the GIRM boasts that Rome is only honoring “the original norm of the holy Fathers.” Yet by reversing the order and offering transubstantiated bread to God, instead of offering thanks to God and then bread to the people, Rome has diverged from the norms of the early fathers. That change took place toward the end of the 4th century.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “This may seem to be a small difference, but the implications separate you from Rome and Rome from you. In the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucaristia, John Paul II basically said the differences are non-negotiable, and because of the difference in order, you may not partake of their Eucharist, and Catholics may not partake of yours”
Ok. But we still believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the bread and the wine on a spiritual level, not just symbolically or a sign. The spirit is just as real as me and you although unseen. It is what makes us “us”. It takes faith to discern it.
“This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion, the official statement on communion, says, “The Christian church has struggled through the centuries to understand just how Christ is present in the Eucharist. Arguments and divisions have occurred over the matter. The Wesleyan tradition affirms the reality of Christ’s presence, although it does not claim to be able to explain it fully…
Article VI of The Confession of Faith of The Evangelical United Brethren Church, speaks…of the sacraments: “They are means of grace by which God works invisibly in us, quickening, strengthening and confirming our faith in him. . . . Those who rightly, worthily and in faith eat the broken bread and drink the blessed cup partake of the body and blood of Christ in a spiritual manner until he comes.”
United Methodists, along with other Christian traditions, have tried to provide clear and faithful interpretations of Christ’s presence in the Holy Meal. Our tradition asserts the real, personal, living presence of Jesus Christ. For United Methodists, the Lord’s Supper is anchored in the life of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but is not primarily a remembrance or memorial. We do not embrace the medieval doctrine of transubstantiation, though we do believe that the elements are essential tangible means through which God works. We understand the divine presence in temporal and relational terms. In the Holy Meal of the church, the past, present, and future of the living Christ come together by the power of the Holy Spirit so that we may receive and embody Jesus Christ as God’s saving gift for the whole world.”
In other words, Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, confers saving grace upon us through the conduit of the bread and wine as we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, just like He said He would.
But notice that we do offer bread and wine to God:
“Pour out your Holy Spirit on us gathered here,
and on these gifts of bread and wine.
Make them be for us the body and blood of Christ,
that we may be for the world the body of Christ,
redeemed by his blood.”
God, then, sanctifies them by the Holy Spirit, which in turn sanctifies us when we consume them. God doesn’t consume them, we do.
And for that matter, I have never seen anyone, Catholics or not, chop up the bread and burn it on the altar for God, nor have I seen anyone, Catholics or not, take the cup of wine and sprinkle or pour it out on the altar for God. And we don’t, nor have I seen Catholics, take the bread and nail it up on a Cross and spill the wine on it to recreate the Crucifixion as Kevin would suggest when he says “Take Him down off the cross, Bob. Let Him off the altar, Bob.”
I, personally, take yours and Kevin’s comments about idolatry as strawman lies and insults.
But, hey. It’s only a blog, right? You have a right to your opinionjust like anyone else.
Happy New Year, ya’ll!
” notice we do offer up breadcand wine” ” pour out your Holy Spirit on us here, and thesecgifts of bread and wine” Tim, this is the Roman Catholic mentality. Notice these gifts are from God to us, and yet the quote says we offer bread and wine. In a pelagian mind ” not that of yourselves” and not of works” really means earn salvation. Sanctification before justification. Is it any wonder thd Mass is historically known as ” the work of the people” I guess Methodist now believe that the supper is merit for the strong, insread of free grace by faith. K
Thanks, Bob,
You wrote, “You have a right to your opinion just like anyone else.”
Fair enough. But what you posted from the United Methodist Church is opinion as well, and just as vulnerable to fatal flaws. According to Matthew Scrapers’ The Sacraments in United Methodism: A 4 Week Entry into Sacramental Theology, his understanding of the Eucharist is based on a misunderstanding of the very citations I highlighted this week. He writes,
Yet it is clear that the Didache and 1st Clement saw the prayers as the sacrifice, not the bread and wine. Thus, Scrapers’ opinion in The Sacraments in United Methodism is fundamentally flawed. Sure Hebrews speaks of sacrificial language, but its author speaks of our sacrifice in terms of praise from the lips, not an offering of bread (Hebrews 13:15). Sure Jesus says “this is My blood,” and then He offers that bread to His disciples, not to His Father. Sure Clement speaks of “offerings,” but those offerings are a sacrifice of thanks, praise and a contrite heart (1st Clement 18, 35, 41, 52), not a sacrifice of bread. Sure the Didache speaks of a “sacrifice,” but what is the sacrifice? Even JND Kelley says he doesn’t know. But in 14:3, bread is broken, thanks is given. In chapters 4 and 14, it is clear that the prayer, not the bread, is the sacrifice.
In short, even the ostensibly “sacrificial” portions of your Methodist liturgy are derived from 1st Clement and the Didache, and to the degree that they are built upon 1st Clement and the Didache, they are are built upon the Roman interpretations thereof, which are grossly flawed opinions.
So you may reduce my posts to “mere opinion,” which you are free to do here. But even your opinion that my opinion is an opinion, is itself an opinion. What it comes down to is data and the Word of God.
At the Lord’s Supper, Jesus never offered anything but thanks and praise to His Father and never offered bread to any but His disciples. Bread is broken. Thanks is offered. The Early Church understood that. Toward the end of the 4th Century, Satan introduced, and the world has largely bought, a lie about the Lord’s Supper making it into an idol and an abomination as John prophesied (Revelation 13:14-15). You may consider that to be a “strawman lie” and an “insult,” but those accusations are just strawmen and ad hominems themselves. Where have I lied? I have expressed my conviction, and it is this: Rome believes in transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is false. Therefore Roman Catholics worship that which is not transubstantiated, which is bread. That is idolatry. You may disagree with the syllogism, but where is the lie? Where is the strawman? Where is the insult? Roman Catholics are bread-worshipers in that they worship what is mere bread. You think I’m wrong. I think I’m right. There is no insult here except that which you want to see.
If it is a “lie” because I claim Roman Catholics worship bread, but they think they do not, then by your standard, is it not a “lie” for you to say I am lying when I clearly believe I am speaking the truth? If it is an “insult” because I claim Roman Catholics worship bread, but they think they do not, then by your standard, is it not an “insult” for you to say I am insulting them when I clearly believe I am speaking the truth to them? By your standard, your own post is a lie and an insult. Fortunately, we at this blog have the capacity to recognize that one man’s offense and lie is another simply man’s honest opinion. Otherwise nobody could post anything here.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim: “Where have I lied? ”
You answered your own question by saying “Transubstantiation is false.” Now, if you had said “I believe transubstantiation is false” I could take it as your opinion.
But you said “transubstantiation is false.” Prove it.
I believe you can’t. Many have tried. All have failed.
(Bob, pardon my interjection here. I just couldn’t resist this one.)
Oh, come now, Matthew. I wrote, “I have expressed my conviction, and it is this: Rome believes in transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is false. … ”
I guess you could camp on the difference between a conviction and an opinion, but based on your own standard, you cannot prove Transubstantiation is true (many have tried, all have failed), and therefore you cannot prove that my conviction is a lie. Isn’t your accusation therefore a lie, by your own standard?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “So you may reduce my posts to “mere opinion,” which you are free to do here. But even your opinion that my opinion is an opinion, is itself an opinion.”
Touche’
But you also said: “What it comes down to is data and the Word of God.”
Now why did you have to go and ruin a good touche’ with that statement? Whose data? Whose interpretation of the Word of God?
“At the Lord’s Supper, Jesus never offered anything but thanks and praise to His Father and never offered bread to any but His disciples. Bread is broken. Thanks is offered. The Early Church understood that.”
The Early Church also understood that the Last Supper was in actuality a Passover seder meal–the meal being an integral part of the sacrificial rite of the Lamb of God. Jesus was placing His Body as bread to be eaten and His Blood as wine to be drank for His sacrifice of the New Covenant. The Lamb is to be slain and then eaten by the people for whom it was sacrificed.
Tim,
Just so you know, today is Sylvester day ( the last day of the year ) in Europe. Parties everywhere. And of course the Mass today is in honor of Pope St. Sylvester ( well before 350 AD ).
Why Sly? Because his Papacy saw the change from persecution to legalization of Christianity.
Imagine, all of Europe keeping the feast of what you would consider to be a NON POPE!
Thanks, Jim. Here’s what we “know” about “pope” Sylvester:
And that “Donation” of Constantine was eventually revealed to be a complete fraud.
So the only thing we really “know” about him is something that is not even true.
Enjoy,
Tim
Here’s a little more info on Sylvester I:
Date of birth unknown; d. 31 December, 335. According to the “Liber pontificalis” (ed. Duchesne, I, 170) he was the son of a Roman named Rufinus; the legendary “Vita beati Sylvestri” calls his mother Justa. After the death of Miltiades (Melchiades), Sylvester was made Bishop of Rome and occupied this position twenty-one years. This was the era of Constantine the Great, when the public position of the Church so greatly improved, a change which must certainly have been very noticeable at Rome; it is consequently to be regretted that there is so little authoritative information concerning Sylvester’s pontificate. At an early date legend brings him into close relationship wtih the first Christian emperor, but in a way that is contrary to historical fact. These legends were introduced especially into the “Vita beati Sylvestri” (Duchesne, loc. cit., Introd., cix sq.) which appeared in the East and has been preserved in Greek, Syriac, and Latin in the “Constitutum Sylvestri”—an apocryphal account of an alleged Roman council which belongs to the Symmachian forgeries and appeared between 501 and 508, and also in the “Donatio Constantini”. The accounts given in all these writings concerning the persecution of Sylvester, the healing and baptism of Constantine, the emperor’s gift to the pope, the rights granted to the latter, and the council of 275 bishops at Rome, are entirely legendary. The pope, however, took part in the negotiations concerning Arianism and the Council of Nicæa, and the expression ‘omooúsion was probably agreed upon with him before the council. The pontiff also sent legates to the first æcumenical council. Still it is not certain whether Constantine had arranged beforehand with Sylvester concerning the actual convening of the council, nor whether there was an express papal confirmation of the decrees beyond the signatures of the papal legates (cf. Funk in “Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen”, I, 95, 501 sq.).
During Sylvester’s pontificate were built the great churches founded at Rome by Constantine, e.g. the basilica and baptistery of the Lateran near the former imperial palace where the pope lived, the basilica of the Sessorian palace (Santa Croce), the Church of St. Peter in the Vatican, and several cemeterial churches over the graves of martyrs. No doubt the pope helped towards the construction of these churches. Sylvester’s memory is especially connected with the titular Church of Equitius, which takes its name from a Roman presbyter who is said to have erected this church on his property. It was situated near the thermæ of Diocletian, and still exists. Parts of the present building may date from the fourth century. No doubt the pope contributed to the development of the liturgy of the Church at Rome. During his reign, moreover, the first martyrology of Roman martyrs was probably drawn up. Sylvester is connected also with the establishment of the Roman school of singing. on the Via Salaria he built a cemeterial church over the Catacomb of Priscilla, the ruins of which have lately been brought to light. In this church he was buried. His feast is given under 31 December in the “Depositio episcoporum”, or list of the burial days of the Roman bishops, which was compiled barely a year after his death; the same date is given in the “Calendar” of Philocalus. This day, therefore, is doubtless the day of his burial.
So then we can say there are parties everywhere in Europe celebrating fraudulancy today. Who would have thought it of the “church” Jesus personally founded. Not the author and perfector of our faith, but the founder of RCC? A church built on a lie. And Protestants buying it hook, line and sinker. To the law and to the testimony!
Tim, we know that the council of Nicea presents grave problems for defenders of Papal monarchy and infallibility. Why was a council even necessary if Papa could speak infallibly. Why didn’t the Pope speak ex Cathedra against Arianism? Hmm.
Tim, since Protestants here are regurlarly told we misrepresent the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist, is there anyway for you to post the Trent Canons on the Mass so they can read for themselves the Priest pulls Christ down from heaven as th see eternal victim and a true and realsacrifice, efficacious for sins, is performed, although unbloody. There are some Methodist and Catholics that dont understand the severity of the re breaking of Christ’s body and we are told we are all wet. I would post them Tim, but I am computer challenged as well as spelling and punctuation. I want to offer everyone a blessed New Year. I am so thankful for the truth taught here. K
The phrase “pulls Christ down from heaven as the eternal victim” is not in Trent. That’s a close paraphrase of a book by Fr. John O’Brien called the Faith of Millions, which does not have magisterial authority of itself, and which even Fr. Mitch Pacwa has said is rhetorically overstated at this point. I agree with Fr. Pacwa.
Here’s Trent:
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct22.html
Incidentally, Fr. Pacwa said this in a debate—I think with James White—but I can’t remember which debate. I’ve listened to so many debates that after a while they all start to run together in my head.
Scott, who cares what Pacwa says, or you for that matter. Trent says it is a true sacrifice, sacrificium. I cornered the so called brilliant Bryan Cross and he said yes it is a true sacrifice for sins. No kidding, since that is what your doctrine says. It is a re breaking of Christ’ body. And you have to believe it because tgats where you collect you despicable merit for salvation. Otherwise you would believe the gospel alone for salvation and the supper would take its rightful place.
Happy New Year, jackass.
KEVIN–
You said: “There are some Methodist and Catholics that dont understand the severity of the re breaking of Christ’s body and we are told we are all wet.”
See what I mean? There is no such thing as re-breaking of Christ’s Body! Christ is risen, Kevin. He is alive and well and in our midst. And He will be with us always till the end of the age. Of course you can’t see Him, Kevin. It takes faith to discern Him. You will recognize Him in the breaking of the bread.
Well….maybe not you, Kevin. You believe it’s only crackers and grape juice–just a memorial service.
You have no idea what Catholic doctrine says, none. Maybe Tim will post the canonx from Trent. I will say this once more, the Mass is a true and real sacrifice efficacious for sins, and it is a work on the part of participant to earn a merit and increase of grace and justice. It is a reudiation of jbfa. The Mass is the road to hell. God bless.
You can say that again.
You have no idea what Catholic doctrine says, none. Maybe Tim will post the canonx from Trent. I will say this once more, the Mass is a true and real sacrifice efficacious for sins, and it is a work on the part of participant to earn a merit and increase of grace and justice. It is a reudiation of jbfa. The Mass is the road to hell. God bless.
Now THAT’S comedy!
There is nothing comical about it. The mass wounds Christ. It is a direct assault on the complete sufficiency of his finished work which perfected his true followers. There remain no more sacrifices for sin. So thecsacrifice of the Mass is an abomination to God. Augustine said the church has been deprived of the body of Christ until He returns.
Seriously? You didn’t catch what i did with your double response? You are really uptight.
Once again we have run out of reply arrows so I have to respond down here.
Tim–“I have expressed my conviction, and it is this: Rome believes in transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is false. … ”
I guess you could camp on the difference between a conviction and an opinion, but based on your own standard, you cannot prove Transubstantiation is true (many have tried, all have failed), and therefore you cannot prove that my conviction is a lie. Isn’t your accusation therefore a lie, by your own standard?
Since it is your “conviction” that “transustantiation is false” then it’s your burden of proof, not mine.
Prove it or the lying shoe fits your foot perfectly.
Mathew said ” prove it” look at it! You ready to concede.
kevin– “Mathew said ” prove it” look at it! You ready to concede.”
How does me asking for proof make me ready to concede?
Mathew, you want proof against transubstantiation. Look at the wafer. Now, are you ready to concede?
Matthew,
Thanks for your reply. Maybe in the new year I will change the comment structure.
I’ve been through this debate on transubstantiation enough times to know that transubstantiation is assumed by Roman Catholics to be true, and therefore is assumed as the “default” position. Any person denying the “default position” takes on the burden of proof in his denial.
But Transubstantiation is hardly the “default position” it is assumed to be. For example, John Chrysostom said “the nature of bread remains in it” after the words of consecration, and Pope Gelasius said “the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in them” after the words of consecration.
This shows that by the 4th century, the Church still did not believe in Transubstantiation, which as you know, has a very precise definition, namely, “the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ” (Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei, 11). Therefore, Chrysostom and Gelasius both denied what later came to be known as Transubstantiation.
Along came Aquinas who came up with the concept, and then at Trent it was imposed with Dogmatic precision:
Effectively, Trent anathematized Chrysostom and Gelasius, who denied what Trent affirmed.
Roman Catholics will typically respond by saying that Chrysostom and Gelasius were merely trying to express something that had not yet been fully defined, and that the doctrine was still in development. But that is to concede that “Transubstantiation” is a late breaking development, and is itself a novelty, and therefore cannot be the “default” position.
A novelty cannot be the “default” position, or it would not be a novelty. Transubstantiation cannot be both an “ancient dogma” and at the same time “an 13th century development.” Rome cannot simultaneously maintain that Transubstantiation was sufficiently developed in the 1st Century that Ignatius can be shown to support it, but so underdeveloped by the 5th century that Chrysostom and Gelasius can be shown to deny it.
Transubstantiation is itself a novelty, and since a novelty cannot possibly be the “default position,” your affirmation of transubstantiation carries with it a burden of proof that you cannot possibly bear. Many have tried, and many have failed.
Now there is an affirmation that carries a significant burden of proof, and I intend to provide it. That affirmation is this: “The apparition of Mary is the False Prophet, and the Roman Catholic bread idol is the image of the beast, of which we were warned in Revelation 13:14-15.” The burden of proof is on me, and I will carry that burden gladly.
Nevertheless, my conviction that “Transubstantiation is false” is hardly a lie. You may think it is wrong, but it is not a lie.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim–“Nevertheless, my conviction that “Transubstantiation is false” is hardly a lie. You may think it is wrong, but it is not a lie.”
You wiggle and you squirm but you still didn’t disprove transubstantiation.
In all of the previous words above, you gave dissenting opinions of some Church Fathers. The preponderance of writings of other Church Fathers confirm that transubstantiation existed although they did not yet know how to define it. You can read those in the responses of your own blogs. And quite frankly, I believe you knew about those anyway and chose not to cite them because they damage your case.
The fact remains that when you state “Transubtantiation is false” as a proven fact, then it is a lie. If it is just your conviction, your belief, your opinion, and that you have set out to prove it wrong, then I can understand you to be truthful in your statement. Ergo, your “conviction” that I am a bread worshipper is just a hypothesis of yours. And if you will concede that to be true, then I will take it into consideration of you being a liar or not.
Matthew,
Let’s watch you wiggle and squirm…
You wrote:
You wiggle and you squirm but you still didn’t disprove transubstantiation.
Response:
He doesn’t need to disprove because it’s not the default position. A positive case that doesn’t conclude with transub. is all Tim is required to supply.
———————-
You wrote:
In all of the previous words above, you gave dissenting opinions of some Church Fathers.
Response:
I take this as confirmation of Tim’s work. I will never let you forget it.
———————-
You wrote:
The preponderance of writings of other Church Fathers confirm that transubstantiation existed although they did not yet know how to define it.
Response:
Here you play the wise man. The preponderance of writings can’t show us a definition of any existing thing because the writings pre-date any definition. However, upon closer examination, we discover that the Fathers knew HOW to define it BECAUSE those writings allegedly contained WORDS that signify the TRUTH of existing Transubstantiation. You defend some kind of deck stacking.
——————–
You wrote:
And quite frankly, I believe you knew about those anyway and chose not to cite them because they damage your case.
Response:
What about your case ? You say the Fathers had no definition because they didn’t know how to do it. Opinion ruled, right ? But we find a very strange coincidence between “preponderance of writings” and the future “definition”. Preponderance is pretty big and hard to avoid seeing, right ? Why didn’t those dissenting Fathers not see it ? It’s no accident that you characterize them as Fathers who were in a “dissenting” condition before the definition. Your words poison the well before we drink from it.
Which is it wise man ? Is the “preponderance of writings” or the “definition” authoritative ? Both, right ? Love to eat that cake and see it !
——————-
You wrote:
The fact remains that when you state “Transubtantiation is false” as a proven fact, then it is a lie.
Response:
The fact remains that you are a fool. Trust me, I will shoulder the burden of proof and enjoy it.
Attack those dissenting Fathers the same way you attack Tim. Wise Man, you know that some Fathers had dissenting opinions. The opinion, in dissenting opinions, means something very close to “Transubstantiation is false”. Otherwise, why would they not use those opinions in the definition ?
Don’t miss this wise man. It sounds like Tim is finding the substance of his assertion among some of the Fathers. How is that possible ? I thought they were Fathers in the faith to you blessed children.
Eric W.–“The preponderance of writings can’t show us a definition of any existing thing because the writings pre-date any definition. However, upon closer examination, we discover that the Fathers knew HOW to define it BECAUSE those writings allegedly contained WORDS that signify the TRUTH of existing Transubstantiation. You defend some kind of deck stacking.”
Ok “wise man”–
Dissenting opinions were overruled by later authority.
The preponderance of views from the other Fathers prevailed. That’s how it works.
Did the hypostatic union exist before the definition of Chalcedon? It certainly did. It was later defined at Council to put down heresy. Did the Arian heresy exist before the Council of Nicaea? It certainly did. And it was put down at Council. But I would figure that a “wise man” like Eric W. would have known that already.
Did transubstantiation exist before it was formally defined at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215? It certainly did. From Canon 1:
“There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us. And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors.”
Here is a document that explains these things in excruciating detail that is highly documented. It is really long or I would have printed it here. But here is the link if you are not too busy to read it:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1192
Enjoy.
Matthew,
All of us must watch for Romanist tricks.
You wrote:
Dissenting opinions were overruled by later authority.
The preponderance of views from the other Fathers prevailed. That’s how it works.
Response:
Trick #1: Tell them that authority has power over dissent and opinion. Then tell them that certain “views” prevailed without making “view” and “opinion” the same thing.
You mean a certain “opinion” prevailed because authority favored it.
——————–
You wrote:
Did the hypostatic union exist ….successors.”
Response:
You gave excellent examples of this principle among RCs:
Definitions, and the act of defining, presuppose the true historical existence of the thing defined.
The entire RC apologetic is traced back to this distinction: THAT it is and WHAT it is. Transub. existed is knowing THAT it existed and the definition gives you knowledge of the WHAT exists or existed.
Try giving examples that don’t beg your ENTIRE position. You can isolate one dogma or doctrine without prejudice to the history or sum of dogma and doctrine.
———————
From the document you recommended:
They confuse a new term with a new doctrine, forgetting that, while the expression of a truth may sound unfamiliar, the truth itself may have been held from the beginning.
Response:
Now defend the document. The truth itself, held from the beginning, is and was a doctrine in some form. Isn’t that so ? Now, if a new term is used to express a truth, then that truth was known before the “new term”. If known as a doctrine in some form AND as a truth, then SOME Fathers with views that prevailed didn’t hold to opinions. They held a doctrine(s) in some form that was known to be a truth. They held this BEFORE the full doctrine and term called Transubstantiation.
It is my prayer that RCs, or anyone on the fence, know certain things about RC views on authority. In reality, their authorities NEVER rule over conflicting opinions. Authorities define or develop an EXISTING doctrine, known as a truth from the beginning. The existing doctrine is underdeveloped. See what I mean ? They are defining or overruling on an under-defined truth, NOT an opinion.
Stack the deck galore !
Trick #2: Make them think that authority is necessary in a sea of opinions. Don’t tell them that the truth being defined isn’t actually an opinion in the same sense as “sea of opinions”.
MATTHEW–
Kevin talks in code. You haven’t been on this blog long enough to understand his typos.
I think Kevin means that if you want proof that the bread is not transubstantiated, just look at it. If you look at it and it still looks like bread after the consecration, then it’s still just bread. If that is the case then, are you ready to concede the argument?
(By the way. I don’t mind the interjection. Transubstantiation is out of my league.)
I already posted before I realized, sorry. Lol
” the early church recognized the supper as a seder meal” This is not true. This c was a normal Jewish meal. Even Pope Benedict says nolamb was eaten at the last supper. According to John it was the day before Passover. Jewish scholars say wrong place, wrong time.
I wanted to remind our Catholic interlocutors that along with Tim’s convincing material against teansubstantiation and the sacrifice of the Mass, there is another another site called onefold blog ” evidence from the early fathers against the real presence”, that is eually as powerful. I challenge any of you to walk away from Tim’s evidence or onefold blog still defending transubstantiation. And may I boldly say that if transubstantuation cant be trans. ” substantiated” , the whole of Catholic religion falls. This is the summit of your religion. If no real presence, no continual sacrifice for your sins, no accumulating of internal righteouness necessary for salvation by doing it, and no gospel of pay as you go. The alternative is to come out of the synagog embracing Christ alone by faith alone for your righteouness, then the supper wil be what God intended it to be, free spiritual nourishment received solely by faith in the remembrance , that Turtullian said ” the flesh that WAS given for our sin. It is finished! He is risen. Catholics, stop going to Mass to earn your salvation, but believe in the Word which alone can save your souls. God bless you all.
I want to remind any Catholic interlocutors that Kevin is spreading lies about what Catholics believe. You know what you believe, he doesn’t. He is just wailing and gnashing his teeth.
Mathew said ” Kevin is spreading lies”Prove it? You do allot of hand waving, acusing all Reformed here of lying. What you do speaks so loud we dont here what you say Mathew. Prove anything I havecsaid about the Mass isnt true. Is it not according to Trent a continual sacrifice ? It is. Is it
not a work necessary for a Catholics
salvation? It is. Is merit not offered to
increase in grace and justice ex oopere operato? It is. Is it not historically called ” the work of the people” in salvation by the Catholic church? It is. Did Paul say ” to the one who does not work”, ” not of yourselves” not of works” , if its by works its no longer by grace”? He did. The Mass is contra gospel, accrding to Trents own words. Thats why there was a Reformation. Thats not a lie. As Tim has said the first 1500 years of the church wasnt Roman Catholic, not close. K
operato? It is.
Kevin: “As Tim has said the first 1500 years of the church wasnt Roman Catholic, not close.”
Yes, Kevin. That statement is a lie.
Mathew, the men that went to Nicea. Please identify which doctrine they knew of? 1. Papal monarchy/infalibility? No 2. Immaculate conception of Mary? No 3. Assumption of Mary? No 4. Transubstantiation? No5. Sacrifice of the Mass? No 6. Sacramental salvation ex opere operato? No 7. Purgatory? No 8. Penance? No Do you want me to continue. I think Tim had it right. The church was always catholic, just not Roman Catholic. In fact the true church always set itself against that system, and suffered death for it. Scripture says thecChristian church will be persecuted. And who persecuted it. Yourvchurch, Roman Catholicism. catholic being universal, Roman Catholic being specific. When Rome excomunicated the Reformers it excomunicated itself from the true church, and came under the anathema of Galatians 1:9. K
Mathew, check ouf Isis ths Egyptian goddess worship and its influence on The Roman Catholic religion, anx Mithraism the pagan religion that involved a sacrificial meal of eating flesh and drinking blood and its affects of theRoman Religion. Prayers to the dead, relics, female goddess worship, altars, etc. Romanism came about in the 4th century when Constantine in making Christianity the state religion, brought in al this paganism. So the RC is really a little chritianity mixed in with paganism. The trud church wasnt Roman Catholic. If you ars willing to do some honest research, you’ll get fo the truth. God bless.
KEVIN–
You said: ” the early church recognized the supper as a seder meal” This is not true. This c was a normal Jewish meal. Even Pope Benedict says nolamb was eaten at the last supper. According to John it was the day before Passover. Jewish scholars say wrong place, wrong time. ”
Not according to the bible:
Mat 26:17 ff Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover? ” And He said, “Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, “My time is near; I am to keep the Passover at your house with My disciples. The disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover.”
It was the Passover Feast of Unleavened bread so it is quite possible there was lamb on the table of the Last Supper.
When Jesus actually celebrated the Passover, he did it in the traditional way of the Pharisees. That is what we see in the synoptic Gospels. With the Pharisees, Jesus kept the Passover strictly in accord with what Moses said in Ex. 12. However, when John wrote about Christ’s passion, he does not put the emphasis on the Lord’s Supper that the synoptic Gospel writers do. In fact, he does not mention the Lord’s Supper at all. He emphasizes the crucifixion. Only in passing, as he describes the activity of the day, does John mention that it was “the day of preparation.” John was not speaking of the practice of Jesus and the apostles; he was speaking of the practice of the Sadducees, who had a large number of priests in their camp and great influence in the culture at the time. This fact explains why John calls Friday the “day of preparation” instead of Thursday. The Sadducees, who moved the Passover to Saturday, celebrated the day of preparation on Friday, rather than on Thursday as Jesus and the apostles did.
Jesus was slain the next day on Saducees’ Passover when all the lambs were sacrificed. The lamb’s blood was to be shed and the meat cooked and eaten for the seder meal that night. The Early Church recognized that Jesus was our Passover Lamb to be “slain and eaten.” The Eucharist commemorates the sacrificial rites of Passover.
The Eucharist commemorates the flesh and blood that was broken and shed on the cross. Take it up with Pope Benedict who rightfully said there was no lamb eaten. None of the proper preparations were done that are done for the seder meal. I suggest you study Jewish tradition. This was simply what is called a talk feast meal. And John had it on the evening before. The bread and wine had priority. Incidentally, it commemorates the not yet glorified flesh that was given for us on the cross, not the glorified body of the Mass.
KEVIN–
Then how do you explain the gospel of Matthew?
Passover commences on the 15th of the Hebrew month of Nisan and lasts for either seven days (in Israel) or eight days (in the diaspora). In Judaism, a day commences at dusk and lasts until the following dusk, thus the first day of Passover only begins after dusk of the 14th of Nisan and ends at dusk of the 15th day of the month of Nisan. The rituals unique to the Passover celebrations commence with the Passover Seder when the 15th of Nisan has begun.
The first day of Unleavened Bread is the day of the seder meal. That is Jewish tradition. What Jews have you been talking to?
Eric W, Catholic tactic, when you cant refute a position, just post the RC ” detailed” position and by the authority vested in itself” makes it true. It is evident they cant look at the proponderance of evidence, and I would say the totality of evidence against transubstantiation because of the threat of loss of salvation in believing opposite the Roman church. Its better to die in a false system knowing you risk loss of salvation leaving it, then to believe the the evidence given here and trust the Word alone. But we know that those who ard not willing to deny mother, brother, sister, and false mother church and her transubstantiated mass are not worthy of Him. They would rather trust the accumulated inherent righteouness offered in the sacraments of a false gospel, then to trust in the only rightouness that can save the, the righteouness that come from God thru faith. They must protect their idoltransubstantiation with all their being, without it they cant be saved. K
Eric W.–“They are defining or overruling on an under-defined truth, NOT an opinion.Stack the deck galore !Trick #2: Make them think that authority is necessary in a sea of opinions. Don’t tell them that the truth being defined isn’t actually an opinion in the same sense as “sea of opinions”.
The Arian heresy was a “sea of opinions” before it was condemned by a Council with the authority to do so. Or do you think the Arian heresy should not have been condemned because authority is NOT necessary?
You also said–“In reality, their authorities NEVER rule over conflicting opinions.”
Makes a whole lot of sense coming from someone who doesn’t submit to any authority except himself. That is why you are considered “protest”-ant. Find something you don’t like in what your church teaches, and you jump ship and holler “Foul!” from the outside. How convenient. Church rules don’t apply to you anymore. Excommunication? So what? You’ll find a different Church or start a new one. It’s been going on for 500 years now. As Solomon said “There is nothing new under the sun.”
Join Kevin in your wailing and gnashing of teeth. Misery loves company.
Mathew, why didnt the Pope speak ex cathedra against Arianism, why call a council?
Your kiddin’ me right?
Mathew, the Protestant Reformation liberated consciences from the oppresion of thd Roman Catholic church. At the diet of Worms people were running up to Luther in the streets, even Catholic Priests. Centuries of killing and oppression from the Pope and his religion telling people they must buy their salvation, that salvation comes only thru the church and its sacraments. God sent Luther to free men to the gospel and Christ as mediator, not the church. I hope you read Luther’s ” On Christian Freedom” God through theReformation freed men’ consciences to the FREE grace of God and the assurance Scripture gives us, and peace. The understanding that we are friends of God, and no longer enemies. And recognize the Roman Catholic church for what it was, the tormentor of men’s consciences thru ” working really, really hard for meritat the sacraments. Perverted gospel. Luther dealt a fatal blow to Rome, and the world was never the same. The emancipation of the conscience thru the gospel. Sola scriptura, Sola grazia, Sola fede, Sola Christu, Sola gloria. Amen!
Matthew,
Earlier, you wrote:
Did the Arian heresy exist before the Council of Nicaea? It certainly did. And it was put down at Council.
Followed by:
The Arian heresy was a “sea of opinions” before it was condemned by a Council with the authority to do so.
Response:
Don’t miss this very simple reply. According to you own system, if it was thought to be a heresy BEFORE condemnation, then it wasn’t an opinion. The heresy was measured, presumably, by a known truth(s). It wasn’t an opinion measured by a known truth. Judgement of its heresy came before the great and wide judgments of condemnation. Truth needed to be known before the authorities judged.
——————–
You wrote this:
Makes a whole lot of sense coming from someone who doesn’t submit to any authority except himself….
As a reply to this:
”In reality, their authorities NEVER rule over conflicting opinions.”
Response:
Trick #3: If they expose us, then treat our tricks like methods of obedient wise men.
Eric W.–”As a reply to this:
”In reality, their authorities NEVER rule over conflicting opinions.”Response:
Trick #3: If they expose us, then treat our tricks like methods of obedient wise men.
Protestant apologetics Trick #1:
Always treat Catholic apologetic techniques as tricks.
Matthew, you wrote:
Protestant apologetics Trick #1:
Always treat Catholic apologetic techniques as tricks.
I do no more or less than a respected Devil’s Advocate. Was the DA part of the Catholic apologetic ? The answer to that question will reveal the real trickery resting in the heart of all apologetical pleaders for Rome.
Mathew said ” always treat Catholic apologetic techniques as tricks” yes, our example is transubstantiation, a doctrine to trick the senses, totally foriegn to scripture and the early church. Yes Mathew, always treat Catholic apologetics like tricks. The Roman church is a trapeeze artist. Able to make Mary a savior, one mediator mean many, to the one who does not work mean to the one who works. Scott has this lexicon. He makes Priest’s of the NT, even though hiereus isnt used in the NT. Tricks indeed.
“Hierus isn’t used in the New Testament.”
I’d check again.
http://biblehub.com/greek/iereus_2409.htm
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/15-16.htm (“hierourgounta” is the active verb form of the noun “hierus”)
I guess Strong’s Concordance is in on the Catholic trickery.
Kevin–
Are you going to answer Bob’s question or what? It’s right down your level of expertise–the Word of God and Jewish tradition.
Mathew, why are you worried about me answering Bob’s question, are you Bob?
Are you Eric W.? You seem to respond to my responses to him. Or maybe you are Walt. Or could it be that we are all interlocutors for Tim just to spice up his blog. Ever heard of quantum physics? Maybe we are all just someone else’s imagination.
Kevin, you wrote:
Catholic tactic, when you cant refute a position, just post the RC ” detailed” position and by the authority vested in itself” makes it true.
That’s why I read it, quoted from it, and told Matthew to defend it. There’s an internal problem with the whole position.
Never be afraid of being buried in “details”. The real meat is stated at the beginning or the end. If not, then it’s not worth reading.
———————
You wrote:
They must protect their idoltransubstantiation with all their being, without it they cant be saved.
I can’t remember who said this first, but I learned it from an apologist. It goes something like this,
Do for the truth what the cults do for a lie.
Eric W.–“Never be afraid of being buried in “details”. The real meat is stated at the beginning or the end. If not, then it’s not worth reading.”
In other words, “Don’t confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made up.”
Got it.
Matthew, you wrote:
In other words, “Don’t confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made up.”
Do you have any idea how many facts I read from RC sources ? I spent a 4yr. courtship and 8yr. marriage with all that stuff. My mind has trouble grasping the incoherent, so in that sense it is already made up.
I quoted from your beloved document and commented. Wise Pleader, address my comments or stop trying to defend. Or defend with silent submission. Submit pleader.
NEVER!
Go, Scott, Go!
Matthew,
Before you put the pom-poms away, I want a chance to earn your adulation.
See Hebrews 7:23-24. Does it teach that all New Covenant priest(s) go to heaven to continue their priesthood ?
Eric W.–
Hmmmm…..It doesn’t seem to say anything at all about the New Covenant priesthood, just about Jesus being our High Priest. I think before I answer that, I’ll read ALL of what Scott has to say about it first. Then, I’ll get back to you on that.
Matthew,
I think before I answer that, I’ll read ALL of what Scott has to say about it first. Then, I’ll get back to you on that.
Very judicious.
Thank you.
Mathew said ” I think Ill read Scott’s stuff first. Ill save you time. Its Newmanology. He makes a Roman Priesthood show up out of NT that cantains none, and he tries to convince since heireus, mentioned over 400 times in the NT, not mentioned once in the new, really does support NT sacrificing Priests. Consider this Mathew, the whole point of the book of Hebrews is that the old covenant is obsolete, there is no longer a need for Priests since we have a high Priest after a different order who lives forever to make continual intercession fo us. His altar, Priesthood, and sacrifice are in heaven where we have an advocate with the father. 10:14 says his one time sacrifice PERFECTED us. And verse 18 says there are no morecsacrifices for sin. Why do you still attend a continual sacrifice that cant perfect you? Why do you submit to an imperfect Jesus still on the cross? Why dont you believe Paul when he simply says ” the righteous shall live by faith? We are a royal Priesthood, God’s cleras, clergy. We are the Temple of the Holy Spirit. God does not dwell in buildings anymore, and certainly not in human institution called Roman Catholiism. You have called us all liars, but it is you who have bought the trick and the lie. Paul says in Romans 6 Jesus is NEVER to die again, certainly not on a Roman altar at the hands of a Roman Priest. He is risen! And has sat down at thecright hand of the father, and someday will come for his people, not to judge us, but to gather us. Scripture says the dead saints are longing to put on tgeir new bodies now. Mathew,the writer of Hebrews warns that the need for an earthly, altar, sacrifice, and Priesthood is falling back in faith. The jewish Christians were being warned. Law cant bring righteouness, we must trust in the only sacrifice that put sin away. Heb 9.
Kevin–
Here is your statement. Read it very carefully:
“He makes a Roman Priesthood show up out of NT that cantains none, and he tries to convince since heireus, mentioned over 400 times in the NT, not mentioned once in the new, really does support NT sacrificing Priests.”
Did you even read Scott’s blog about Hebrews? And the use of heireus in the New Testament? He has even given you the links, Tarzan.
The nice thing about you blowing all this hot air is that it is cold outside and your hot air goes on for such a long time. How cozy.
Eric wrote about Matthew:
“Matthew,
Let’s watch you wiggle and squirm…
You wrote:
You wiggle and you squirm but you still didn’t disprove transubstantiation.
Response:
He doesn’t need to disprove because it’s not the default position. A positive case that doesn’t conclude with transub. is all Tim is required to supply.”
Matthew does not understand this default position. I only wish he could read the context of Scripture and avoid Rome.
Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge. (Prov.19:27)
Though thou, Israel, play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend; and come not ye unto Gilgal, neither go ye up to Bethaven, nor swear, The Lord liveth. For Israel slideth back as a backsliding heifer: now the Lord will feed them as a lamb in a large place. Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone. (Hos.4:15-17)
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matt.15:9)
When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question….and the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter…So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation. And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them…. (Acts.15 entire, quoted verses 2, 6, 30,31)
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good works and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. (Rom.16:17-18)
Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. (Phil.3:2)
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you. (2Thess.3:6-7)
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputing of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. (1Tim.6:3-5)
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with diverse lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. But thou has fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, long-suffering, charity, patience, persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. (2Tim.3:5-13)
Mathew, I’ ll let Paul answer Bob’ question. 1 Corinthians 5: 7″ clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you in fact are unleavened, ForvChrist our Passover HAS BEEN sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wikedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 2:12″ Now 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. It is finished Mathew. Transubstantiation and further sacrifices of our Lord and eating his physical body for increases of grace and justice negate the has been sacrifice that perfected us. Now we have His Spirit all things arecfreely given though faith in Him. All things. K
Man! Be away from the computer a while and I miss alot.
It took me a while to find my place.
KEVIN–
Mathew, I’ ll let Paul answer Bob’ question. 1 Corinthians 5: 7″ clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you in fact are unleavened, ForvChrist our Passover HAS BEEN sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wikedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 2:12″ Now 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. It is finished Mathew. ”
How does this answer my question about the Gospel of Matthew placing the Last Supper on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread? Jewish tradition makes it a seder meal and not a so called “talk feast meal”. I googled “talk feast meal” and came up with some Jewish rabbis that say, in short, that the Gospel writers falsified their testimony to fit in with their beliefs.
Kevin, do you believe the Jewish rabbis who say Christians falsified the Word of God?
Walt–
Interesting. I’ve been thinking the same thing about you guys.
How uncanny is that?
I think I’ll go back to reading Scott’s blog. He makes more sense.
Eric W– “Matthew, you wrote:
Protestant apologetics Trick #1:
Always treat Catholic apologetic techniques as tricks.
I do no more or less than a respected Devil’s Advocate. Was the DA part of the Catholic apologetic ? The answer to that question will reveal the real trickery resting in the heart of all apologetical pleaders for Rome.”
Please refer to Protestant Trick #1.
Thanks for your inquiry.
Matthew, you wrote:
Please refer to Protestant Trick #1.
Thanks for your inquiry.
I knew I was right. You are wise in part, seriously. Push your wisdom ahead. Why plead for Rome against us ? All of us, including you, have reached a point of calling evil good, and good evil. Who will judge between us ?
The answer to that question will be the same as pleading for God as judge. We, hard-core reforming type, are very honest and sincere with our own principles. We protest against those who, in the end, plead for something other than God as Judge.
That’s why your Prot. Trick #1 is not far from the truth. We are shrewd like snakes with Christ’s approval.
Are you not bored with pleading for Rome and never playing the DA ? Take hold of the DA, for it’s part of your apologetic, and discover how you may judge Angels one day.
EW well said.
Eric W.–“We, hard-core reforming type, are very honest and sincere with our own principles. We protest against those who, in the end, plead for something other than God as Judge.”
We Catholics are very honest and sincere with our own principles, too. We have even published ours for all to see. It’s called the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is very lengthy and excruciatingly full of details and documentation. But don’t let that fool you. It is a good read–and not just at the beginning and the end. But then you should already have a copy since you courted it for 4 years and married it for 8.
You also said–” Are you not bored with pleading for Rome and never playing the DA ? Take hold of the DA, for it’s part of your apologetic, and discover how you may judge Angels one day.”
Why? You do it so well without me. Besides, Thomas Aquinas wrote Summa Theologica. It’s like reading the volumes of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica of the Devil’s Advocate. You’re such a fan, you should get yourself a copy. But it’s expensive in hardback. You might be able to get it used, or it may be available on cd-rom.
Matthew, you wrote:
We Catholics are very honest and sincere with our own principles, too. We have even published ours for all to see. It’s called the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Response:
You would have no publication without the approval of ONE Church among this so-called “Catholic Church.” No, not ONE Church, but ONE Bishop over that Church. What’s this “We” have published ? You published nothing.
How pathetic ! I gave God as Judge. You gave a catechism that can’t stand without the approval of one man-judge. Your entire life and doctrine is centered around submission to this bishop-god.
Your bishop-god gives many instructions on how to reach God. Among these instructions, we find the bishop-god commanding us to listen to him. Give us ONE, not many, but ONE Word from God that instructs us listen to your bishop-god.
I can give you ONE Word from God that instructs us to listen to His Son Jesus.
EW, best post ever! Her bishopgod indeed! Awesome brother.
John 13:20
Matthew,
John 13:20 doesn’t mention your bishop-god. You have no Word from God, do you ?
Eric W, Hus wrote a book called De Ecclesia. Lutger said we all stand on Hus shoulders. And in it he said Chris the is the Lord of his church. He said the church leaders of his day hated when Jesus Christ Lord of His church was preached to much. He died for it. Those that worship the bishop god, the wafer god, and mother of Jesus god, cant listen to those of us who listen only to the true head.
Matthew and RCs,
The Vatican I teaching on Jesus, Peter and Peter’s successors is incoherent. My reason for this is that Peter is NOT the SUCCESSOR of Jesus. Peter SHOULD be Jesus’s successor if the VI teaching is true.
Mathew said ” it is very lengthy, and excruciatingly detailed and docjmentation” You mean rites, and sacramentals, and twelve types of grace as a tool to merit salvation, condign and congrous merit, Masses,Purgatory, Treasury, relics, scapulars, comediatrix, transubstantiation, Popes, Cardinals, Nuns, all piled on the cross, and Jesus buried under the pile. Tim said it best, thd rise ofvRoman Catholicism.
Mathew, Rome adds its merits to Christ’s gifts and its words to God’s Word.
Scott calls Kevin the fool on his site, a term known well by the master of lexicon trickery. Scott knows the noun hiereus is never used in the NT. In fact Jesus never calls himself hiereus or his disciples hiereus. That term was reserved for OT Priests and the false Priesthood of the Roman Catholics. Trickery no more.
I’ll be charitable and assume you missed the two links I provided (see above) documenting the use of “hierus” in the NT. I’d check them out.
And ill be charitable and not expose you on how those usages have nothing to do with your empty assertions as proof of NT sacrificing Priesthood. You traded Protestanism for a return to Judaism, we get it, but dont justify it by false pretense Incidentally, you can call me any name you want. I dont care.
Shalom.
Scott, men were burnedcat the stake for standing up for the simplicity of believer priests. The word cohen means stand before, the word hiereus means sacrifice. We stand before God as priests, a royal priesthood, offering up the only sacrifices acceptable beford God, praise and thanksgiving, a broken and contrite heart. No more vestments, ceremonies, no more sacrifices for sin, just the simplicity of personal and public worship. Jesus was the fulfilment of the Aaronic Priesthood, therevremains no more offering for sin. But we see the simplicity of believer priesthood corrupted by the power of the bishop to preside over all things spiritual. This started with Ignatius, and saw the supressing of believer priests, and the domination eventually of a spdcial class. But with the Reformers we saw the return to the NT model Peter laid out. Although the Reformers couldnt totally shake themselves from the dreggs of Rome, their emphasis on the Priesthood of all believers was a return to the truth of scripture. Tim has documented well here the sacrifices acceptable before God, and which that are not. I would not even for one minute submit to your Priests, who have the audacity to call themselves another Christ, and think they have the perogative to offer Christ up again and again as his regent. No way. K
The word for “sacrifice” in Greek is “thusia.” “Hierus” means priest.
“Stand before” in Hebrew would be “la’amod lipne.” “Cohen” means priest.
If you cannot get your facts right, how can anyone believe what you say?
Jesus never called himself or his disciples hiereus. Hebrews 8:13, its in your bible right? Do you have the word for obsolete in your lexicon? Do you have the translation for Hebrews10: 14, one sacrifice perfected us. How about 10:18, no more sacrifice for sin. And yet with all that info in your lexicon, you left pure religion for the replay of judaism. Heed the warning of the writer of Hebrews Scott. The need for an earthly altar, sacrifice and Priesthood is a denial of faith.
Nothing more than an effort to deflect from your now-documented ignorance.
Scott, all the Reformed here are used to being called liars, ignorant by Catholic apologists. One man’s ignorance is another man’s brilliance. Shalom.
It’s “brilliant” to say “hierus” means “sacrifice” and “cohen” means “stand before” when they mean no such thing?
Well, if making stuff up as you go along and not even feeling shame when called on it counts as “brilliant,” then I’ll grant that your brilliance hath no peer.
Scott, I reread my post and I wrote it incorrectly. ThevOT Hebrew word for Priest is Cohen, the root of this is to stand. The NT word for Priest is Hiereus. Both are used in the context of standing before God to offer sacrifice. In the OT it was animal etc., and in the NT it is the priesthood of believers standing before God offering spiritual sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. There is no NT special priesthood offering sacrifice for sin. Hebrews 8:13. The word hieurtroma sp. Refers to believer priests in the NT offering the only acceptable sacrifices described in the NT. But again you are avoiding the main point, Jesus never called himself of his disciples Priests. The special Priesthood of Rome acting as secondary cause is nowhere in NT, and violates the finished work of Christ, and the priesthood of believers. We dont need Priests, we are Priests who go directly into the throneroom according to Hebrews. God is soveriegn mediator of salvation, not a human secondary cause. God has control on the conscience, not the church. K
I saw this after I posted my last comment. But I already addressed what the content of the “sacrifice” was in my article, so I won’t get diverted into a discussion of that in any other combox but mine.
“Kohen,” “priest”: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3548.htm
“hiereus,” “priest”: http://biblehub.com/greek/2409.htm
“thusia,” “sacrifice”: http://biblehub.com/greek/2378.htm
“l’amod lipne,” “stand before”:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5975.htm
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/lifnei_6440.htm
Or you could just say that “stand before” is translated “l’amod lipne” from Exodus 9:11 alone:
http://biblehub.com/text/exodus/9-11.htm
But you would never say “cohen” to mean “stand before.”
FYI, I’ve never made a habit of getting into combox discussions about my own blog article on someone else’s blog, simply because a pingback appeared there.
Scott–
I just spent some quality time perusing your blog from that pingback. Excellent stuff. Interesting to note that you were raised Methodist.
Ya hear that, Bob?
Thanks for the heads up.
I’ll check it out.
Mathew said to Scott ” I just spent time pursuing your blog…..” There are two religions represented by Tim’s and Scott’s blog. Tim’s represents divine accomplishment, and Scott’s represents human achievement. Execellent human achievement?
If this blog represents “divine accomplishment,” perhaps we should add Tim’s articles to the canon of Scripture.
Scott, nice try. I said this site represents the religion of divine accomplishment, the gospel. Way to misquote and deflect. But I understand how you would mistake that for adding Tim’s writings to scripture because Rome’ s whole church built of doctrines not found in scripture. Like Luther said when criticised by Rome from departing from the orthodox faith, he said what faith are they talking about in the last 300 years, the faith of Popes and Cardinals, doctrines completely foreign to scripture. Scott, thats funny, you complaing about added revelation. As Horton said, if Paul excluded his brethren in the flesh from the kingdom of heaven I Romans 10:1-4 for adding their merits to God’s works, then Paul would hardly admit Roman Catholics who do the same. Unfortunately Scott, none of you can understand the alphabet in scripture without the Roman church telling you what I means. Its to bad, or I would tell you to study Romans9:32-10:4 morning, noon and night. His brethren had a zeal for God, believed in grace, but added their merits to God’s gifts and suffered eternal damnation. In Philipians 3 Paul didnt consider his sin dung, but his righteouness. Think about it, unless you have to call the main office. Go Cardinals today!
It was a joke, Kevin. You really take your blogger-god Tim way too seriously. It has gone far beyond sycophancy. I really fear it might be idolatry.
Tim,
I just wanted to tell you how much I benefited from this post. Reading Clement was a particular blessing, like a glass of pure cold water.
Lord bless you,
Maria
Maria, I agree with you, reading Clement is refreshing. Rome must add its merits to Christ’s gifts and its words to God’s Word. Its great to see the truths that Tim has pulled out from the fathers and here with Clement. God bless.
God bless you too, Kevin!
Eric W–“Matthew,John 13:20 doesn’t mention your bishop-god.
Naturally it wouldn’t since you made up your lie of the bishop-god. Can you show me anyone anywhere that worships a bishop as God? No you can’t. Because you made it up.
You also said “You have no Word from God, do you ?” If you mean that Jesus gave men His authority to do His work here on earth, I gave you one verse. There are many more. But you know them already. Why are you asking me?
Catholics have no problem with the authority that Jesus gave the Church. It’s you Protest-ants who protest that authority.
Let me ask you, Eric W., what authority do you have over the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church? Who ordained you with that authority?
Eric W. —
Ooops. I was using Bob’s computer and forgot to change the address. Don’t attribute my temperment to Bob. He is a lot nicer than me.
Eric W, Bob and Mathew have the same computer. They borowed it from CK. Lol All Methodist from Texas that attend the Catholic church. God bless them all.
Yeah, Matthew came up to see me. We hang together once in a while. I may have created a monster by telling him about my blogging with you guys. It ‘s got him sorta riled. He’ll get over it.
Eric W, when you were a Catholic was continual lying a mortal sin? My wife asked me today? Could you do the Mass? Or would you have to visit the confessional first and do satisfaction? I wasnt sure.
Kevin, you asked:
when you were a Catholic was continual lying a mortal sin? My wife asked me today? Could you do the Mass? Or would you have to visit the confessional first and do satisfaction? I wasnt sure.
I can’t see how “continual lying” is not a mortal sin from their view. If I was conscience of a mortal sin, then I would visit, try to do what they said, and add my own penance to prove my love. There were times when I didn’t do Mass because my conscience didn’t permit.
Today, I ask Priests to hear my confession if I can hear their confession.
Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. – James 5:16
Mathew said to Eric, ” can you show me anyone anywhere that worships a bishop as a God” Catholics. They have to believe in the Pope as head, at the expense of excomunication. Jesus Christ is head of His church, and there c an be no other head thereof, Colossians 1. You trust in the wrong head. Eric’s point is Jesus has no successors, He is the only head of the church. A man is head of your church. Trusting him cant save you. God bless
Mathew said to Eric, ” what authority do you have over the Magisterium of the Catholic church. ” We are a royal Priesthood, God’s cleras ( clergy). Tell your Priests to stand away. We submit to Christ. When we consider all the villanies and crimes Rome’s Priest have commited, we concur with Spurgeon, we would rather a man looked at us in the street and called us the devil than call us a Priest. For all that the devil has ever done, he would be hard pressed to match all that has been done under the guise of a special Priesthood. K
Bob & Matthew,
Repent of your ignorance !
Roman Catechism:
Bishops and priests being, as they are, God’s interpreters and ambassadors, empowered in His name to teach mankind the divine law and the rules of conduct, and holding, as they do, His place on earth, it is evident that no nobler function than theirs can be imagined. Justly, therefore, are they called not only Angels, but even gods, because of the fact that they exercise in our midst the power and prerogatives of the immortal God.
————————-
But even gods ! But even gods ! But even gods ! Wake up !
————————-
You wrote:
Let me ask you, Eric W., what authority do you have over the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church? Who ordained you with that authority?
Response:
Your question reveals how impoverished and ignorant your biblical faith is. You want me to answer how I conform or don’t conform to their standards. They, themselves, are the answers to their own questions. Check this out. I’m more ready to submit to them if their sense of submission/authority was biblical. They see submission as a one way street. You submit to them, period.
Biblical submission (at least one aspect of it):
Eph.5:20-21
…always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.
——————
Again, you asked:
Who ordained you with that authority?
What’s ironic is that submission ordained me !
1Peter 5:5-7
You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE. Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time, casting all your anxiety on Him, because He cares for you
——————-
One anxiety I cast on Him is the spiritual tyranny of your bishop-god and his sycophants. Sorry, I can’t quote an authority that calls them sycophants. Just open your eyes and see how they behave.
Bob & Matthew,
I forget a finishing touch.
After submission, He will….?
….exalt you….
Now submit to me because the bible commands it and God has exalted me. (at least in the form of a promise)
Wow! Well said EW.
Kevin,
The RC apologist, and I stress apologist, is impotent in the face of biblical faith. They don’t know God by faith, period. Notice how their spirits are confounded by biblical resistance. BOB and Matthew have one spirit and one computer.
Flee you spirits.
Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. – James 4:7
Bob & Matthew:
I see that we have so discombobulated EW and Kevin that they are now attempting to perform exorcisms on us. If they can’t defeat us by reason, treat it as spiritual warfare.
Scott wrote:
If they can’t defeat us by reason, treat it as spiritual warfare.
In principle, our reason can’t defeat you. So why do you care ?
Vatican I:
Since human beings are totally dependent on God as their creator and lord, and created reason is completely subject to uncreated truth, we are obliged to yield to God the revealer full submission of intellect and will by faith.
——————-
You fear SWarfare. You know someone can confess this Vatican I faith, and still be a devil.
Yes, we fear spiritual warfare, which is exactly why we have that prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our advocate against the wickedness and snares of the devil, etc.
Eyeroll.
Scott,
You displease God by invocation to an Angel. Which battle of war do you expect to win when God is displeased ? Fear mixed with Angel worship. Not very good Armor.
—————–
My beloved readers,
Did you see me stop Scott with my awesome powers of reason. Remember what I told you, they are masters of what is NOT there. He left my reason comment and quote in silence.
God must be very pleased with your ability at self-congratulation.
Incidentally, and more seriously, I didn’t address your quotation about reason because I agree with it. Our reason comes from God and must be subordinate to him. This is Catholic orthodoxy. To say anything else is intellectual pride.
Scott,
Sometimes I like to have fun and jokes.
Jesus said, why do you call me good? No one is good except God.” But your Catechism says about your bishops ” are they called not only the angels, but even gods. ” read Roman Catholic doctrine, believe the opposite, arrive at biblical truth. Our respect for Tim’s writings are a smokescreen for your documented idolatry. Whose going to step up and answer Eric W’s claims instead of playing the tu quoque card.
Kevin, I googled those words you attribute to the Catechism, as a direct quotation no less, and came up with ………..[drumroll, please]……..NOTHING.
What section of the Catechism are you “quoting” this from?
Eric provided the quote from the catechism. You’re surprised huh? It is an incredible to call sinners like ourselves gods. Scoundrels would have been morecaccurate.
We’re speaking on top of each other. It’s not from the 1994 Catechism (the current one), it’s from the Catechism of Trent.
“It is an incredible thing to call sinners like ourselves gods.” Well, then let’s call God “incredible,” because that’s exactly what we find in Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34-35. So don’t blame Trent; blame the Bible.
“Oh,” you’ll say, “but the Bible only means it in such and such a sense.”
Yeah? So does Trent.
The sense of that passage from Trent is the exact same sense that Jesus was speaking of in John 10:34-38. Jesus is quoting from Psalm 82:6. “He called them gods unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken.”
That verse in Psalms means judges. Thats not what the Catechism is referring too. The Pope posesess the power of both swords, and is king and God on earth according to Trent. He isnt accountable to anyone, including the church, the scripture. He is supreme. And you have to believe this under the threat of loss of salvation and excommunication. He makes laws outside of scripture. He accoountable to no one, no state, no church. He is king of the earth. Hd has usurped the names of the Trinity. Eric W, was exactly right, bishopgod. Indeed.
Your problem is that, rather than seek to understand, you rush to condemn. Only the Holy Spirit can help you with that. I wish you well.
Hey everyone!!!!! KEVIN JUST SAID THAT RUTH BADER GINSBURG IS A GODDESS!!!!!! See what he said about the Psalms saying that judges are gods! Kevin worships the Supreme Court!!!!!!!
Scott,
Go right ahead. Give us the Word that came to your bishop-god(s). Give us the Word that says…
I said, “You are gods”
—————
Here’s some more profound irony when dealing with RCs. Fine, they are gods. I ask them why do they continue to judge unjustly ?
How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked ? – Psalm 82:2
The author(s) of the Roman Catechism, who are supposed to be gods, judged that it was just to call them gods. Why is it just to call them gods when our words and call is not the same as God’s “I said”.
Those jealous bastard bishop-gods ! They read that God called unjust rulers “gods”. Dammit, those bastards said. Call us gods.
Wow. No words.
Never mind, I found it … it’s not in the 1994 Catechism that everyone uses. It’s in the Catechism of Trent.
“instead of playing the tu quoque card … ”
You really have intellectual difficulty with the concept of a joke, don’t you? Everything for Kevin is as serious as a toothache.
Incidentally, Kevin, I only root for the Cardinals in baseball—unless they’re playing Philadelphia or Pittsburgh. I’m a Pennsylvania native, but I went to graduate school in southern Illinois and so watched a lot of St. Louis baseball in those years. I’m not much of a football fan, sorry to say.
I went to Southern Illinois Univ. My whole family is Cardinal baseball fans. Im an Angel fan. Been out west forever. How come you left thd cardinals for the cubs, if you know what im saying. Lol k
Oh, I’m not a Cubs fan. I went to SIUC too. M.A. in English, 1998.
Scott wrote to Kevin,
Your problem is that, rather than seek to understand, you rush to condemn. Only the Holy Spirit can help you with that. I wish you well.
Right. You diagnose problems, which is a form of help from you, then you give a prognosis. The prognosis, which is another form of help, directs Kevin to the only one who can help. The Holy Spirit wants to thank you for all your help.
I have driven Eric W to cursing. This is when it is time to check out. This will be my last comment here. There is a difference between a reasoned exchange of ideas, a reasoned discussion of differences of opinion, and a toxic atmosphere in which, rather than reason, there is nothing but baiting and accusation, sneering and contempt, and vile ugliness. This is anti-Catholicism at its most wicked and hateful and diseased. I have had back-and-forth exchanges with non-Catholics on my own blog. Not a single one of them was anything like the conversations here. Not one. Not even close. The atmosphere here is poisonous. I wish you all well, but to engage in further dialogue will be an occasion of sin.
Behold Scott’s last comment ! It’s a piece of serious PSYWAR and very spiritual.
I make one exception…he wrote:
I wish you all well, but to engage in further dialogue will be an occasion of sin.
Scott, follow your conscience because it’s wrong if we don’t.
Scott–
If it’s any consolation, I agree with you on the toxic atmosphere here on this blog. I’ve been dealing with it for some time. Like you I have thought about leaving it from time to time. But alas, it’s like crack cocaine, I’m addicted to it.
The thing is, none of us know anyone else on this blog personally(except for me and Matthew–we’ve been friends since high school). So don’t take any of this bickering personally. Eric W. and Kevin can’t make sound judgments about the Pope because they could care less who he is. Notice how they have made a snap judgement about me and Matthew using the same computer. Just the one time and now we are branded forever.
And the sad thing is, I don’t expect to get an apology from them. Well, I did see Kevin’s Christmas Apology in General. And naturally when there is contriteness of heart, forgiveness is certain. That’s how we Christians roll.
” EricW and Kevin cant make sound judgments about the Pope because they dont know who he is” I think Eric W exposed with Catholic doctrine who the Pope is today, and he did it masrefully. He quotes the Catechism calling your bishop gods. He calls himself Holy Father, vicar, head of the church. The official Catholic doctrine says he posseses the power of both swords, submits to no one, not the church, nor civil. According to Catholic theology he is infalible when he speaks ex cathedra, and he answers to no one, he is king of the world. We know who he is. A mere sinner like ourselves. Ratzinger showed us it wss nothing but a job. He resigned. How could the church live if the head resigns. He resigned he said because ofvall the filth in the church. God’s representaive on earth resigned. God bless.
BOB, you wrote:
And the sad thing is, I don’t expect to get an apology from them.
It’s unjust to apologize for no offense. I can only speak for myself when it comes to this charge. You, or Matthew (who knows), mentioned a computer/address first. Whenever someone mentions something I come in and pick it up for public use. The whole apology thing is another sad example of PSYWAR.
Please, don’t miss this. Scott wants dialogue on his own terms. Scott’s rules rule. His tender heart demands it.
If it’s crack cocaine you want, then I’m your Captain Jack.
” I keep coming back here because its likeccrack cocaine” You keep coming back here because you know Tim Kauffman has been where you are.. You know he knows the scripture. You know he has a gift from God to expose the error of Roman Catholicism and preach the truth. And you know he truly loves Catholics to do the incredibly time consuming research and study to produce these articles. You want the truth, thats why you are here. You are faced with the same decision that Tim, Eric, and Walt were. God is calling you out of Roman Catholicism, will you listen. God bless
Scott said ” your problem is, instead of seeking to understand, younrush to condemn.” Scott my wife taught me along time ago that no one really cares about opinions like They ard like shoes, everyone has a pair. Instead of focusing on character assasination, try telling us why in the world your bishops are gods? Why is your Pope submit to no one, no law? Why does he possess the power of both swords, to make laws etc? Why do you submit to men who arent accountable?
Matthew wrote:
“Walt–
Interesting. I’ve been thinking the same thing about you guys.
How uncanny is that?
I think I’ll go back to reading Scott’s blog. He makes more sense.”
That would be a really good idea to encourage Scott. He got pretty beat up over it seems, and if you and other Protestants could encourage him more in his sin I think it would help him mentally and emotionally. Spiritually it is dangerous, but anything you can do to support him over there would be great.
Walt, that was good.
Eric wrote the following:
“Please, don’t miss this. Scott wants dialogue on his own terms. Scott’s rules rule. His tender heart demands it.”
This is really the key point since I have been reading Scott and Matthew both. Scott admits somewhere here that he has listened to hundreds of debates, and they have all sort of blended together. This tells you where Scott true passion and heart is by his own admission. It is in the sin of debate.
He loves to debate. It is who he is. He loves to set the rules, and if you don’t follow his debate rules than he is going to get really upset. Almost like a child standing in front of a parents crying and screaming stamping feet side by side debating with parents to give him his way. It is not effective on this site, so Scott and Matthew will console each other on Scott’s blog to encourage one another in their sin.
Scott is an admitted former Lutheran turned Roman Catholic, and clearly this tells one by admission a lot. Modern Lutherans have no resemblance of anything truly reformed as did Luther. Lutherans, like Wesley’s Methodism, is really Romish at its practice, government and doctrine. Look at the priestly garments many in these movements…tell me this is not anti-biblical and pro-Romish. None of this stuff is even remotely a picture of the true church of Jesus Christ subsequent to His deal, burial, resurrection and accession to the thrown at the right hand of His Father. NOTHING.
Matthew loves to reference Scripture as a Roman Catholic like it is the fundamental basis for his belief system. This is ideal in theory and hypocrisy, but you can be certain that even Satan himself was a master at using Scripture to tempt Jesus Christ to sin. In the wilderness he tempted Christ using Scripture references, but Christ being the Master and Creator of those very infallible truths corrected and rebuked Satan.
Anytime Matthew, like Satan himself, uses Scripture to justify his support for Rome than rebuke him firmly and correct him faithfully using the literal sense context of Scripture. Use the Scripture to interpret the Scripture, and don’t be deceived when Matthew uses his own conscience as his guide. His conscience is truly seared and founded in doctrines of devils:
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” (1Tim.4:1-3)
Follow the truth of this inerrant statement by Westminster:
“IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”
Walt, another insightful post. Great evaluation. I agree.
Kevin wrote to Bob:
“You want the truth, thats why you are here. You are faced with the same decision that Tim, Eric, and Walt were. God is calling you out of Roman Catholicism, will you listen. God bless.”
Kevin, please…stop pandering to Bob. You must have heard what he wrote here. He made it clear he has no interest in the truth, none. He is a Methodist and will remain a Methodist his entire life because it is where he gets his comfort. His friends and family are Methodist, and it is where he find consoling and encouragement of community.
Truth is not even on the list he gave. Please quit appeasing these men on this idea of truth. There is not one Catholic or Methodist that has visited this site who are interested in the truth. We know this by the way they first arrive here asking Tim if he was damaged as a boy…implying maybe he was one of the one’s that a Romish priest molested or did he get abused by someone who was a Roman Catholic authority. Then they go off like both Mathew and Scott love to do and move into the “anti-Catholic” charges once they know Tim was not molested or abused. It has NOTHING remotely to do with the Truth for any of these men. They have one goal here, and that is to disrupt, confuse, beg and plead to get Tim and anyone who will listen to STOP WRITING against Rome, and return to Rome. They could even put us on TV and ETWN to tell our story of going from being a wicked and foolish Protestant to returning to the true Church of Rome. In fact, they have publishers who will pay us up front cash to write a book if it can be juicy enough to draw more Protestants back to Rome.
The Inquisition did this by force, and during the first and second reformations they used force, money and indulgences to anyone who would denounce “Lutheranism” and “Calvinism” to return bow their knee to the Romish Antichrist. In Scotland, they ordered ALL TO BE MURDERED who swore to the National Covenant that denounced Rome point by point by point by point, and refused Rome.
Blood, murder, killing, raping and brutal torture was and is the Romish legacy. It fills the pages of history. Read Foxes Books of Martyrs and just learn the story of the Covenanters of Scotland in what they faced signing the National Covenant of Scotland and the Solemn League and Covenant of Scotland, England and Ireland.
No, these men have NO INTEREST in the truth. What they want is lies, coverup, deceit, polytheism, unitarianism, a one world religion run and lead by Rome and her Pope. They are out to silence (first by debate) and then by the sword anyone who disagrees with them. Learn Rome’s history…study her tactics and understand her Jesuit soldiers. This is the world’s largest religion…larger than Muslims and Hindus. Rome has captured by her doctrine, worship, discipline and government 90% or more of the modern, vocal, visible Protestant churches, and 100% of the Orthodox churches.
Just watch what happens on Christmas and Easter. I Russian friend from Europe recently wrote me about his family celebrating the “Roman Catholic feasts” of Christmas and told me this week his family will celebrate the “Orthodox feasts” of Christmas. AMEN, I said to myself. Here is someone who knows what is this feast. It is Roman Catholic and Orthodox periods of Christmas NOT FOUND in Scripture.
People do not care. In fact, if you protest Christmas even Protestants will rebuke you as they love these feasts as ways to worship “baby Jesus and Mary”.
So much for the rant, but I’m disappointed in anyone where pandering to Jim, Matthew, Scott and Bob ever suggesting they are hear for the truth. The truth has nothing remotely to do with these men being here. They are here to defend their sinful ignorance, and play games with Tim and Kevin.
Walt, I think you are correct. And we know apart from God removing the veil, there will be no change. Salvation is from thr Lord. But, im sure Tim’s hope is that God will save some. Calvin believed we shoul always pray for the salvation of all men, but I am under no allussion they love their sin, their idols. Genesis 3 gives us the clue, men’s sin is they want to be God. Romanism is the crack cocaine for that. Thanks Walt.
Walt, I think you know where my heart is, my words have backed it up. I have been kicked off 3 blogs, been called every name in the book, and told to hang myself in fighting antichrist. I will never forget what Rome stands for, killing Christians. But as Tim has reminded me, and Spurgeon said, we still must love their people, they are God’s creation , although not his children. Some of them are. Thanks for the post.
Walt, I think you are right though, it is presumptive to think any are herd for the truth, although I am hopeful. In retrospect that post wasnt well thoughg out. Thanks
There is a difference and distinction to be made in true love for the Lord and our neighbor that are the elect, and another more general love for all mankind. The Lord loves all in that He provides all the sun, rain, moon and sun for example. All are treated equally with these blessings upon all mankind. He does not just send the sun to His elect, and hail storms on the house next door to those who hate Him and despise Him.
We have a general love as does God for these men in one sense that we pray for them, we desire to rebuke and correct them and protest against their evil surmising’s. We must learn that they really do not care about the truth, have no desire for the truth and genuinely get angry against those who speak the truth. The truth is not in them as the Holy Spirit is not in them, and so the idea is that we “love the sinner, and hate the sin” is false doctrine.
We hate them RIGHTEOUSLY as they hate Christ. Read the Psalms and see all the Proof Texts where Paul tells us to flee from these people. Avoid them. This is not because we love the sinner and hate the sin. It seems purely evil in the eyes of the world to hate anyone, but I’m not speaking of worldly hate. I’m speaking of a biblical righteous indignation against those who really hate the Lord by their words, actions and verbal testimony. I have a general love for them as the lost.
Those here will be responding to this post with “anti-Catholic” statements that my comments prove I’m a hater and I hate all Catholics and that I hate everyone who is not like me or that is one of the elect of Christ. This ignores my desire to make a distinction.
Here is the bottomline. Out of love for the truth, and love for pure worship and love for the Father’s glory, the Son will sentence those in judgment to everlasting torment who hate Him and have ignored His word. This judgement could be considered hate by God, but it truly is a righteous judgment against those who hate Him. We must understand that those who hate Him are not to be loved in the same sense we love the Lord, and called to love and worship Him in spirit and IN TRUTH.
Walt, this is very good. Im not sure I disagree with any of it well stated. I agree that thevtruth is not in them. But Christ died for us while we were yet sinners, and as it says in Jude for us, trying tonsnatch them out of the fire. Trust me I have lost all my Catholic friends challenging their religion and sharing the gospel. They have all of laughed in my face. They hate the gospel. I dont regret one bit, except when I have been unloving at times. But you are we must have a righteous indignation for their evil. However, I dont dismiss there may be some Roman Catholics here in terror for their souls. Lets face it without Purgatory Romanism is a tough sell. Never knowing your saved, the threat of mortal sin sending you out again, a sysrem of accumulated inherent righteouness based on merits and demerits cant bring the peace of the Gospel. Having said that Thessalonians says they are deluded, deceived, under a veil, unable to come to the truth. Youhave described our Catholic Iterlocutors rightly. They are not interested in the truth that Tim has put out here, only to disrupt, demean, and persecute. I cant wait for Tim to address the true church here. We know the church will suffer persecution, and we know Romanism cant be the church because they have been thecpersecutor of Christians thru history. K
Walt, actualy im glad you said this, and talked about righteous indignatio, because many time I have felt guilty for feeling it. Thinking it is unloving. But you have encouraged me, that we must hate what tgey do to Christ. They wound Him, and diminish his perfect finished work. They put a piece of bread up in the place of our savior, a few drops of water in place of the Holy Spirit, and a sinner like ourselves up as head of Christ’s church. Yet few Protestants care, running to embrace it. Mathew 11:12 we must never forget. Thanks Walt. We are in His army fighting Satan’s church. Rome
Walt and Kevin, thank you for rescuing this discussion, for refocusing it on the truth.
Maria
Maria, your welcome. You seem to have a humble sweet spirit. Did you come out of Catholicism? Would love tobhear your testimony. God bless you Maria.
Kevin,
Thanks for asking about my testimony. If there is anything sweet in me – someone who used to be blind to the needs of others – my testimony is this: it is because the Lord Jesus Christ stooped down to give me life and forgive me. He saw me filthy in my blood, lying beside the road:
Ezekiel 16
5 None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the lothing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born.
6 And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live.
Now I realize that this is not the perfect application of these verses, but this verse is dear to me and strong and true. I’ve been delivered from darkness into the Kingdom of God’s Beloved Son. And He is a Great Saviour – you can’t compare anyone to Him! And He did this work alone, and He intercedes for us Himself.
Yes, I was a Catholic, baptized as an infant, raised a Catholic, and attended Catholic schools. However, because a young church planter – from the Christian Missionary Alliance – would not let me get away with contradicting the Gospel, or with saying “but the Church [of Rome] says,” but said to me, “The Word of God says,” I can say this now: that I was delivered from darkness into the Kingdom of God’s Beloved Son. And though I’ve stumbled a lot and been selfish again, He is keeping me and cleansing me daily. This is God’s work – He doesn’t need help, though He has ordained to let us preach and teach.
I invite the Catholics here to put aside everything else and read the Bible with the prayer that the Lord by His Spirit will give you understanding about Christ’s work on our behalf.
2 Corinthians 5
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
You don’t need any other mediator but the Lord Jesus. Your lack of faith dishonors Him. Either He is perfect and His work is perfect or we are lost.
I Timothy 2
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Kevin, be steady in your faith and make friends with those who will consistently point you to the narrow way, like Tim and Walt and others. Pray without ceasing – it’s so easy to fall when you think you’re standing. We cannot stand ourselves, but the Lord makes us stand. We are all so weak. And don’t be tempted to despair at all the debate, because frankly all of this kind of talk is upsetting and depressing. Build yourself up on your most holy faith. The simplicity that is in Christ.
Forgive me for speaking here so much as a woman. But I consider this to be evangelism and encouragement, not teaching.
Your sister in the Lord,
Maria
Thanks Maria that was beautiful. I want to encourage you to find a church that preaches the word and administers the sacraments as the scripture teaches. I do not hold Walt’s more negative view. There are many good churches Maria. My wife and I have had the blessings of being in faithful churches. But remember Luther said he got saved from a church full of saints. He meant that the church isn’t perfect. Its full of sinners. When I go to church Maria its nourishment from the Lord for the Soul. This world is brutal, but Christ’s church is where he pours his grace on us. I will pray you find a good one. Eric W attends a wonderful Baptist church and he is reformed. I attend a bible church an I consider myself reformed. And I just love tim’s teaching. The one thing Tim said to me one time in a post has always stayed with me. He said when I meet someone from another denomination I can stop and say hi brother. Sometime the reformed can be a little stiff necked, but Tim rally treats everyone the same in love. After all the scripture says if we have not love, we are a clanging symbol. I’ve clanged enough in my life. Maria I’m glad you are here and I will be praying for you. Thanks for sharing all you did. God bless you.
Thank you, Kevin! This was helpful, and I really would appreciate your prayers for my husband and me about this. God bless you and your wife also!
Maria
Maria wrote:
“Walt and Kevin, thank you for rescuing this discussion, for refocusing it on the truth.
Maria”
As I read this blog week after week, I do feel a sense of frustration to some degree. I do see the Catholics reaching out with a sense of confusion. So often we are ready to tear down people, or to point out all their sins, but often fail to teach them what they can do about it. Tim does a masterful job of pointing out week after week what is wrong with Rome, and why it is a type of Babylon in our generation with prophetical fulfillment of the whore, the antichrist and the beast all rolled into one for all eyes to see.
However, there is no alternative for these people. Where are they suppose to turn? Do they turn to the evangelical protestant church? Certainly not, as within that segment are where we see the certifiably insane. Watch TBN, the Inspiration Network, JCTV or the Church Channel sometime, and clearly you have a group of really confused, warped and emotionally unstable ministers (both male and female). The number of scandals from time to time leaked out of TBN will make your head spin, and even a Judge sanctioned the lawyers for TBN for burying a whistle blower in lawsuits just because they were trying to get their story in the record. TBN lawyers attacked them with one suit after another after another after another before even the merits of the first case could be heard.
Again, this shows you they are insane and they attract only the ignorant, weak in faith and the desperate to give money in blind faith to have it return to them 10+ times or more to just survive in many cases. Rome appeals to the same poor and desperate to give up everything they have to support the local Priest and congregation so she can build the world’s largest church on earth … hovering in all corners of the world.
Where do they go? The Morman Church or the Sabbatarian sect known as the Seventh Day Adventists? Should they leave Rome and join one of these confused Saturday Sabbath cults?
http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/sabbathkeepingchurches.html
Look at the list…it will blow your mind. To think our reformed and protestant forefathers died in blood for these “bible only” groups is just sad to see. The list of allegedly “protestant” denominations range in the 10’s of thousands, perhaps some could peg at globally 100,000 or more. The church is rend in disunity and evil denominationalism.
Growing up Catholic gave me a religious footing, and it gave me a sense of community and fellowship. My father went to Notre Dame and played a year of football his freshman year. He brought the fighting Irish into my life, and growing up I loved being a Catholic. I could look out and see everything Roman Catholic from mayor’s to senators to my teachers to my sports coaches to the mailman to those super rich families I worked for who attended mass once on Easter and once on Christmas eve for midnight mass. I was surrounded by everything Roman Catholic and I loved it.
However, out of frustration of how they treated my mom in the name of the true Roman church, I started to read the bible cover to cover, and there were things I KNEW were not true. I did not need any theological degree. I knew what I was taught, and I knew what I was reading. Both contradicted each other, and I either had to believe what I was reading or believe what I was taught by my Romish Priest and Nuns. I could not believe both and so I started attending every other type of church I could attending…including Messianic as my father side was Jewish. I figured I must go to a Jewish Messianic church to get back to “my roots” as the Seventh Day Adventists promote.
The more I read the bible cover to cover, the more I thought to myself the entire Christian world is insane. Doctrine, form of worship, form of government, discipline and practice was all opposite of what I was learning by reading Scripture. But where to go? What was the most true to the written word of God, and where were they in history?
This is what these Catholics will have to face if they really, really, really want the truth. If they want community, fellowship, the fighting Irish and man’s praise for being a Roman Catholic in the eyes of the world with a rock star Pope traveling the world organizing his vision of a global religion, then they will come here and complain. Screaming like a baby to be treated with respect or label anyone who disagrees as “anti-Catholic bigots”, and vent day after day. They don’t want to learn anything from Tim’s research, they come here to hear themselves speak and practice debate.
At some point, they will need to find the path of a nearly invisible true church in well-being, and it is not within the broad path, but is within a narrow and tiny path in history. It has nearly be silenced and continues to look insignificant to the world. At one point is with multi-national, international and very vocal pounding out sermons against Rome, but today it has been practically silenced and Rome has compromised all of them into her stables and broadening now outside the Christian church to compromise with Islam, Budda, Confucius, the Pagans and Satan himself. There is no friends, family and community of support for those in our generation seeking to withdraw from Romish doctrine, discipline, form of government and form of worship. NONE. The first and second reformations are over, largely silenced and with the help of the massive global Jesuit and Catholic schools and universities there is practically no place to turn for reformers desiring to learn the truth of Scripture and history. NONE.
Without some answers to where is the true church, I expect every Catholic who visits here will focus on the same issues. Tim was damaged or molested. Then if that does not fit, it will be who in his upbringing turned him into a “anti-Catholic bigot”. If that does not work, then why cannot he answer even the most crazy way out there questions, when they ignore even the most simple basic evidence he shows how much Rome is deceiving people. It will go around and round with Tim showing how they are all deceived and worshiping idols and bread according to the early Church fathers, and they will respond “Ok, show me where is the true church from the first century (e.g., Apostolic church) forward in history”.
Until we address both sides of the coin, I expect a lot of frustrated Catholics coming and leaving this site. Yet, it is better than no Catholics coming and leaving this site in my view. Hope that gives you some thoughts to ponder, as I know you have a blog too trying to reach Catholics.
WALT–
You said: “So often we are ready to tear down people…Tim does a masterful job of pointing out week after week what is wrong with Rome… However, there is no alternative for these people. Where are they suppose to turn?
I agree!
You also said: “Where do they go? Look at the list…of allegedly “protestant” denominations range in the 10′s of thousands, perhaps some could peg at globally 100,000 or more. The church is rend in disunity and evil denominationalism.
Yes! I agree. That’s what I have said multiple times on this blog.
And again you said: “Without some answers to where is the true church, I expect every Catholic who visits here will focus on the same issues….It will go around and round with Tim showing how they are all deceived and worshiping idols and bread according to the early Church fathers, and they will respond “Ok, show me where is the true church from the first century (e.g., Apostolic church) forward in history”….Until we address both sides of the coin, I expect a lot of frustrated Catholics coming and leaving this site.
You are absolutely correct! Tim has posted nothing but what is bad about the Catholic Church, and yet has given no alternative as where to go–just out. No one has said the name of this mystery unseen church. Is it Victory Bible Baptist? No. Is it the Church of Scotland? No. Is it First United Methodist Church. No. Is it Southwood Presbyterian Church. Again, the answer is no. As you said “The church is rend in disunity and evil denominationalism.”
What is the answer, Walt?
Waalt said ” However there is no alternative for these people. Where are they supposed to turn.” Bob said ” I agree” Wait a minuets Walt and Bob. No alternative. Cmon. There are many fine churches that Calvin described this way ” Wherever the Word of God is sincerely preached and listened to and wherever the sacraments are administered according to Christ’s institution., we can be sure the Church of God exists” Walt you just got on me for pandering, yet by you saying there are no viable alternatives to Rome, Bob jumped that to say, aha see it must be Rome. In fact Bob is supposed to be a United Methodist and says the Methodist church isn’t the church. Go figure that. Bob, don’t you think you owe the people on this site honesty? You just said you attend a church that isn’t a part of Christ’s church. And you and Mathew use the same computer. Walt, listen brother, there are many good churches and alternatives. Why are you so down on Christ’s church? A Roman Catholic can leave that synagog of Satan tomorrow and find a good church. I have attended bible churches where teaching the word of God was the main focus of the service and the Lord’s supper administered weekly. Many faithful men fill pulpits every week in this country. That whole 10,s of thousands thing is an excuse Catholics use to put down Protestantism. The Evangelical churches and reformed churches are alive and well. Rome isn’t unified. You want me to list the 1000 sects in Roman Catholicism. Hey, here is the message, the world isn’t perfect, the church is full of sinners. The reason there is so much error, sin. That doesn’t mean there aren’t faithful Reformed, Baptist, Bible church ministers teaching the word. Christ’s church is alive and well. Take a drive with me in Phoenix, and I will show you many good visible churches. Please show me in scripture one visible church with a home office? In Rome? In Geneva? In Jerusalem?In Corinth? In Smyrna? The church spread from the NT to many nations and many peoples in many denominations. K
KEVIN–
You said: “Bob jumped that to say, aha see it must be Rome.”
Kevin, show everybody here where I said that. Copy and paste it please.
And then you said: “Bob, don’t you think you owe the people on this site honesty?”
I’ll have to admit, Kevin, you certainly have a style all your own. You have a wonderful way of showing everybody how you represent your Christian faith.
” The church is rend in disunity and evil denominationalism” What does this mean? You eliminated all Protestant churches, and your saying you haven’t argued for the Catholic church being the true church? All I said is that you said you are a Methodist from Texas and you eliminated your own church from being a part of Christ’s church. I haven’t eliminated the church i attend from being Christ’s church. You said ” Walt said “Where do they go? All these Protestant denominations” And you said ” Ya thats what I have said multiple times on this blog” So can you explain to me after eliminating all Protestant churches and even the one you attend, why do you ask that question? You have a church, the Methodist church? So why are you asking where to go? Unless you are eliminating all Protestant churches including your own, to say what you have argued here that the Roman Catholic church is the visible church.
KEVIN–
Here is what I said:
“No one has said the name of this mystery unseen church. Is it Victory Bible Baptist? No. Is it the Church of Scotland? No. Is it First United Methodist Church. No. Is it Southwood Presbyterian Church. Again, the answer is no.”
Notice I said no one has said the name of this mystery church. Because no one has. And I have been reading this blog for a while now. All anyone can come up with is the characteristics that church should have, but the name of the denomination is still a mystery.
Kevin said: “All I said is that you said you are a Methodist from Texas and you eliminated your own church from being a part of Christ’s church.”
No, that’s not what I said. You insinuated that.
Kevin also asks: “So can you explain to me after eliminating all Protestant churches and even the one you attend, why do you ask that question? You have a church, the Methodist church? So why are you asking where to go?”
You’ll see why. So here goes. Let’s see what ya’ll do with this.
Tim, Kevin, Walt, Jim, CK, Eric W. Maria, and all the interlocutors who lurk about reading this blog–
HEAR YE! HEAR YE!
The First United Methodist Church is a true church of Christ. It has all the attributes as a church in the way He meant it to be. That is why I think my family and friends are here and that’s also why I think Catholics as well as members of all other Protestant denominations ought to come and experience the Truth.
We offer Christ’s Communion Table (Eucharist) for all who believe Jesus is the Christ and our Lord and Saviour.
What? No reply after 5 whole days?
Imagine that. I have left all of you speechless.
Walt, ” without some answers to where the true church is” Walt, can I ask you a question frankly. Do you need for Tim to tell you where the true church is? Are you looking for a visible church with a home office? Where does scripture teach this? Thanks
Walt, this gives me a lot to ponder. Thank you for putting these things and what happens in the comments in perspective. And, yes, where do ex-Catholics go? In the sheepfold, for many reasons, along with all the needy dependent sheep, there are ravening wolves.
It was easier for me to depart the Catholic world because my experience was less positive than yours, I think, except where it concerned your Mother’s experience. My Mother was single and had less of a certain place in the local parish – this is not a criticism but just how things are for single mothers. We were not as much of a part of this world.
Thanks for all you explained. This blog was a find for me, to have Tim explain these things, and to have them being discussed. It’s simply that the tone of the discussion was deteriorating. But, yes again, where can Catholics go? I pray they will stay here, where the truth is told.
Lord bless you,
Maria
Maria,
Would your mother approve of you talking to Tim?
“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own… mother… yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
Jim, she worshipped with us in our little storefront church sometimes. She liked our pastor and his wife. We went on vacation together once, his family, ours and Mom. All the controversy was painful to her, I believe.
Maria
Walt, I just want to encourage you, there are many good men filling Pulpits committed to teaching the word of God. I agree there is comical numbers of crazy evangelcal churches, into all kinds of things. But God will always be faithful to his church, who is obeying Him, carrying on His mission, and preaching the gospel. There are many good men like Tim whonlove the truth. The Reformation changed the world. Liberating the consciences of men thru the gospel to obey Him and do his work. The Rman church at the time was disorganized, ignorant, steeped in idolatry, and none of its people had assurance. The amazing unity in Reformed confessions was powerful. And bringing the word andcassurance back to the people. Yes one residue of the word of God in thevhands of the people was mucherror. However as Horton points out Popes and councils had errored mightly, and with the bible I the hands of people many were saved, societies changed. Look at the Scottish Reformers and their commitment to the Word, and many other great men of the word. An older man of faith once told me, God Icalways working in his church. K
Bob and Maria,
Finding a faithful church is very difficult in this generation. Kevin has no problem with “reformed” churches that place the label on their website, or in their church title, simply because Kevin has no earthly idea what a reformed church is in history. He is a self promoter of being reformed, and then when you read his testimony it is clear he has never read any extensive reformed literature from first and second reformers. He quotes Calvin from time to time, but if you see his book list as he often quotes here we see nothing but modern ministries who are sorely backslidden and anti-reformed in practice.
Kevin was very correct when he wrote to Maria:
“Thanks Maria that was beautiful. I want to encourage you to find a church that preaches the word and administers the sacraments as the scripture teaches. I do not hold Walt’s more negative view.”
Therefore, by Kevin’s “reformed” definition one should just find a good local church with the word reformed in the title, and jump right in for fellowship and some good reformed preaching. I suspect as long as they believe futurism or preterism in eschatology, that would be ok since one cannot be all reformed all the time. I suspect if they engage in the normative principle of worship, well that is fine as you cannot be reformed all the time in worship. If they practice adult only or believers only baptism, I suspect that is fine too since almost all reformers spoke out harshly against this practice of denying infants into the visible kingdom of God through their believing parents. I suspect if you are entering an independent or congregational church government, this too is fine as there was no teaching on this issue by the reformers, but why Calvin, Knox, Beza, the Church of Scotland, etc. were all convinced that true reformation came by way of the regulative form of worship and Presbyterianism government is critical.
In fact, the Terms of Communion #3 of the Church of Scotland made it clear:
“That Presbyterian Church Government and manner of worship are alone of divine right and unalterable; and that the most perfect model of these as yet attained, is exhibited in the Form of Government and Directory for Worship, adopted by the Church of Scotland in the Second Reformation.”
What? Alone of Divine Right and Unalterable? How can this be when the typical anabaptist was screaming with MacArthur here in America “the only creed we hold is the bible alone”. Bible only, no human testimony…except the creed they state which is their creed that the bible only. Right?
The first term of communion #1 says;
“An acknowledgement of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God, and the alone infallible rule of faith and practice.”
Sort of like the independent creed that says “no creed except for the bible alone” just a little bit more specific, accurate and biblical than the independent version. If you really follow the independent anabaptist view, they could not even speak anything outside reading out loud every verse. To be consistent with their teaching, they could not even make a commentary or give a practical edification or teaching on any verse as it would violate their creed which they call no creed.
I have some research I’ve done on my own that fetters out the distinctions between the visible church in being and well-being during the dark and middle ages, up through the pre-reformation and reformations…leading into the mess we have in our generation. I have never found where it started so that research is yet to be completed. I’m thinking about it often, and perhaps one day will find the thread I’m missing.
I believe I know where it peaked in history, but where and when it started I am unsure.
Walt, this is my last post, as I told Tim tonight. Walt, listen carefully brother. No church owns God, Churches dont connect us to God, but Christ meets us in the gospel where and when He chooses. You said earlier tonight that you arent obligated to love unbelievers the way you love believers, and my guess is your not obligated to the elect in another denomination the way you love Reformed Presbytyrians. Your ignorant to say other churches dont have creeds. You mean they have creeds that and government you dont agree with. Fine. Again where does scripture teach a universal visible church. Paul uses church as a metaphor for the body of Christ. We see the church in many places in scripture? Andcwe know the gospel as Tim has shown went to many places. I would love to hear your answer. But if you choose not to answer, fine. God bless you Walt.
Walt, I do appreciate knowing these things and being shown where to find the closest embodiment of a Biblical church, in worship (regulative principle) and doctrine (Reformed). About the visible and invisible church in the dark ages and middle ages: the invisible church was there, for example, in Patrick’s (actual) church and the missionaries that were sent by it to the continent, and in the Waldenses (Valdois, Valdesi) which suffered and were a light in the darkness. These are two churches I know of. You probably know of these.
Maria, one of the most critical doctrines you can learn is the distinction between the visible and invisible church and that church in being vs. well-being. See below:
The Westminster Confession of Faith (25:2) defines an essentially true church as having one mark, viz., the profession of the true religion.
The idea that there is one mark that alone distinguishes the being of a church from its wellbeing is clearly and plainly taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith, where it states,
The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ; the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation (Westminster Confession of Faith, 25:2, emphases added).
Likewise the Larger Catechism, Question 62:
Q. What is the visible church?
A. The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children.
Notice that the only mark mentioned as necessary for the existence or “being” of a true visible church is, “the profession of the true religion.” According to the Westminster Divines this is the single mark that distinguishes Christian churches from Pagan churches. By using this mark we can determine whether a body of people meeting together for worship are to be considered “Christian” in any sense. The Reformers, by applying this single mark to the Roman Catholic Church, called her a true church (as to essence or being), and correctly distinguished her from the Turks or Pagans.
For example, commenting on Jeremiah 15:16, John Calvin writes:
The name of God is indeed called indiscriminately on all, who are deemed his people. As it was formerly given to the whole seed of Abraham, so it is at this day conferred on all who are consecrated to his name by holy baptism, and who boast themselves to be Christians and the sons of the Church; and this belongs even to the Papists (Calvin’s Commentaries, 1539 Latin, Baker Book House English reprint [1850] 1993, Vol. 9, p. 285).
Another excellent reformed scholar, Francis Turretin, defines the essentially true church (esse) as having one mark, viz., the profession of Christianity and gospel truth.
The Church of Rome can be regarded under a twofold view (schesei); either as it is Christian, with regard to the profession of Christianity and of Gospel truth which it retains; or Papal, with regard to subjection to the pope, and corruptions and capital errors (in faith as well as morals) which she has mingled with and built upon those truths besides and contrary to the Word of God. We can speak of it in different ways. In the former respect, we do not deny that there is some truth in it; but in the latter (under which it is regarded here) we deny it can be called Christian and Apostolic, but Antichristian and Apostate (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1696 Latin, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing English translation, 1997, Vol. 3, p. 121).
Here the Church of Rome (which retains the single mark: a profession of gospel truth) is designated a true church when compared to Pagans. Turretin, like Calvin, is saying that in the Roman Catholic Church there remains a possibility of salvation which is not true in a Pagan group, and in this sense he is willing to call them a Christian church, a true church essential, or a truly constituted church. On the other hand Turretin makes it clear that when he considers the Catholic Church as Papal he designates her a false church and Antichristian. Notice here, that by distinguishing between the being and wellbeing of the Church of Rome Turretin calls them a true church (as to being) and a false church (as to wellbeing) at the same time. It is significant to recognize this point, which to some seems like a contradiction throughout the writings of the Reformers. A true church can, at the same time, be considered true in one sense while false in another. In this case Turretin is saying that though the Romish church is essentially Christian (esse) it has strayed so far from its Christian foundation that it must be called false (bene esse).
Samuel Rutherford defines the essentially true church as having only one mark, viz., the profession of the truth and doctrine of godliness.
A visible profession of the Truth and Doctrine of godliness, is that which essentially constitutes a visible church, and every member of the visible church.” (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries, 1644, SWRB reprint, 1995, p. 251).
Walt, I believe I understand, and have the WC with me to find the places you cited in the confession and larger catechism. Then, the faithful church of Ireland, and those of the early Waldenses, would be both the church in essence and in well-being? Having and professing and living the truth without heresy? Thank you for taking me through this.
After we left our loving but kind of frivolous and non-doctrinally focused CMA church, we began attending an Associate Reformed Presbyterian assembly. This church no longer exists. A friend invited us to an independent freewill Baptist church, and we’ve been there for several years. I believe it was sin to start attending, because we can never be members since we can’t agree on some important things, the doctrine of sovereign grace and the last things. So this church then, would be the church in esse but not in well-being – not because I’m saying it is but because they teach things that contradict God’s Word. I do understand and it explains many things.
Bob,
Let me make a final personal comment. At your age it is going to be extremely difficult to take on the time and energy to start looking for a new church or set of more biblical doctrines in history. I was very fortunate as I had just come out of college and had something burning inside me to pursue this question. I had a solid Roman Catholic foundation so I knew what I was taught, and once I started reading Scripture I could not put it down. The thing that always stuck with me was my Priest (when I was an alter boy and being selected to read in morning mass 3 days a week before school) always telling me how terrible the reformation was and how much it hurt the progress of Roman Catholicism. My Dad did not know much, but he agreed that the reformation was really bad. Dad did say that Luther helped bring about a few reforms, but by in large the reformation was a huge negative.
With this I had to learn what it was…and so I flew to London about each weekend and sat on the floor of old Antiquarian book stores reading what I could learn about it. Then the internet really started making these old books available to purchase, and so I started buying them. Then I started using interlibrary loan to get them delivered to my local library where I photo copied them and sent them back. Building this library of reformed literature helped me see both sides of the table…one as a Catholic boy, teenager and young adult, and the other as a recent college graduate who had learned how to learn in college. I was going to teach myself when I was forbidden to be taught in Catholic School, and decide for myself.
Soon, division started with my family, friends and bouncing from Protestant church to protestant church did not help. I was soon asked to leave or was forced out when my research showed they too were totally violating Scripture principles, and the truly reformed practices. The tipping point for me was when I was in a Baptist “bible only” church who was a big MacArthur follower, and I argued their worship with an organ was not reformed, and their refusal to admit infants into baptism was not reformed. They wanted me to be rebaptized as a former Catholic, and I refused. The reformers never rebaptized any Catholics, as that was a heresy by the anabaptists sect out of Germany as I proved to my Pastor.
Nothing doing. I wanted to bring a legal pleading to the Session with my detailed biblical and historically accurate reformed position, but the Session made it clear to me that no matter what I did, once they ruled against me I was gone. There was no right of appeal and no Presbytery to listen to my appeal. The were the judge, jury and executioner. The Baptist Pastor looked to me just like the Pope at the local level, and whatever I did there was no Presbyterianism allowed as practiced by the reformers.
I left, and went on a search to confirm what I believed to be the most faithful trail in history of the reformers, and true Presbyterianism…which took me to Scotland, England and Ireland. It required a lot of frustration and heartache, but I learned so much along the way studying every sect and cult “glossy” brochure seeking my soul claiming heritage from the “Apostles” (e.g, Baptists) to the “Reformers” (e.g., Presbyterians) to the “Puritans” (e.g, English and Colonial Independents).
Perhaps one day I will find the thread to the start of where I think it began, but until then I’ll not have completed the road through history in my mind. Starting now will be a struggle for you as it will not be easy…
Fascinating story Bob.
I too drifted away from the faith as a young man although I never considered any Protestant denomination for the simple fact that they are all “Johnny come latelies”. I would have left Christianity altogether before joining a denomination.
I returned to the Church after a powerful miracle of grace in my own life. I therefore don’t know what to say as I did not not read or study my way back into the Church.
You say you started studying Protestant stuff as a young searcher. I think that was a major mistake.
Look at Walt. He reads a lot of stuff put out by non-Catholics.
I wonder, when he was still Catholic, did he ever read a damn thing?
Bob, why don’t you take your story over to CCC? I bet there are guys over there that have had similar stories and can give you the feed back you need.
Maria,
My mom was a single mom too and I know how marginalized they feel. And I went to Catholic schools in the 50s sand 60s when single moms were rare even among Protestants, I know first hand because I jumped around between public and parochial schools. My mom was the only single mom in our parish, When I transferred to the public school, there were three. Compare that number to today.
Maria, you need to get to Confession. You also need to cut this site loose. And you need to start using your computer to build up your faith, not tear it down.
Jim thinks Maria is a weak woman weighed down with sins. Notice how he quickly he directs her to one-sided confession. The internet is a powerful, modern way to enter into households. Jim is one of those men who try to enter, so Maria should avoid him.
2Tim.3:5-7:
holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these. For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.…
I like to check the context of Scripture to see if I can gain a better understanding:
2Ti 2:22 ff Now flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.
2Ti 3:1 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.
2Ti 3:6 For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith. But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was also.
Seems to say something about toxic atmosphere’s doesn’t it? And the type of men who cause controversy?
Well, if the scripture fits, wear it
Kevin,
I will choose not to respond to you. Your questions are often off base to what people are discussing, and your lack of even basic reformed teaching on the visible and invisible church is going to take me far more time that I have to discuss. My recommendation is you spend time educating yourself of just basic reformed doctrine, worship and government so that at least when you do label yourself reformed that one can take you serious after you make statements that are allegedly reformed or biblical.
Congrats on getting the basic understanding of the reformed doctrine of salvation down when compared to Rome’s definition. That is a great place to start so I would encourage you to work beyond this basic doctrine. There are a lot more that the reformers defined.
Walt, you are smug. When you have to tell someone how educated you are and how well read you are and how uneducated someonecelse is its unconvincing. Congratulations on basing your whole understanding for non Reformed Presbytyrian churches on your bad experience trying to make a Baptist church into a Presbytyrian church. My recomendation is you educate yourself outside of the Prebytyrian and Roman church. You calling all other Protestants anabaptist is telling. Walt, you do a great job judging others education and character. Maybe you can give us an assesment of your own. K
John Calvin institutes ” So the VISIBLE church is there for all to see” You would think that someone who tells us how many times hevhas read the bible, and how well informed he is about Reformation , wouldnt have such a hard time seeing the church. Calvin the greatest Reformer didnt. God blees BROTHER. K
Maria, in case you did not get this point I am posting it again. Think hard, please.
“It is significant to recognize this point, which to some seems like a contradiction throughout the writings of the Reformers. A true church can, at the same time, be considered true in one sense while false in another. In this case Turretin is saying that though the Romish church is essentially Christian (esse) it has strayed so far from its Christian foundation that it must be called false (bene esse).”
Yes, I understand, Walt. Thank you for taking the time to explain. Probably most Christians haven’t been taught to make this distinction, and so they have difficulty understanding the history of the church and the church in our age.
Maria, think on this quote I made from the same book. Think about these distinctions. If you learn these you will be 90% of the way in understanding what the reformers were teaching about Rome and her (today) daughters. Please ignore Kevin’s comments on these issues…focus on the reformer teaching, not on Kevin’s anabaptist teaching.
Let’s begin with what Rutherford and others do NOT mean when they teach that “A visible profession of Truth and Doctrine of Godliness is that which essentially constitutes a visible church.”
1. Rutherford shows that actual saving faith is not necessary to the essence or being of a true visible church.
That which is unseen is the form and essence of an invisible church, and that which is visible must be the essential form of a visible church (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries, 1644, SWRB bound photocopy reprint, 1995, p. 242).
And whereas our Divines say, that the church is invisible, because faith which is the specific and constitutive form of the Church is invisible, and known only to God the searcher of hearts (Samuel Rutherford, Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline, 1658, SWRB bound photocopy reprint, 1997, p. 418)
2. Ministers, Elders and Deacons are not necessary to the essence or being of a true visible church.
In 1646 an anonymous work entitled Jus Divinum Regiminus Eccesiastici or The Divine Right of Church Government was published. Its authorship is generally attributed to either Westminster Divines themselves (likely the London Covenanted Presbyterians), or those who closely sympathised with them. It is ironic that this book refutes its own publisher (Naphtali Press) on this vital point, the very crux of the controversy!
There are degrees of necessity; some things are absolutely necessary to the being of a church, as matter and form, viz., visible saints, and a due profession of faith, and obedience to Christ, according to the gospel. Thus it is possible a church may be, and yet want both deacons, elders, and pastors too, yea, and word and sacraments for a time: some things are only respectively necessary to the wellbeing of a church; thus officers are necessary, yet some more than others, without which the church is lame, defective, and miserably imperfect (The Divine Right of Church Government, Jus Divinum Regiminus Ecclesiastici, ed. by Thos. Henderson, 1844 edition, SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 121; see also Naphtali Press edition, p. 123, emphases added).
3. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not necessary to the essence or being of a true visible church.
Abraham called with his house to leave idolatry, obeyed the calling, building an altar to the Lord (Gen 12:118) professes and teaches as a Prophet the doctrine of the covenant, and God appearing revealed the Gospel unto him (Gen 12:13, Gen 15:47) and so he and his house are a visible church, when, not while many years after and until he was ninety and nine, the seal of circumcision was ordained and given to him and his house, Gen 17:13. (Samuel Rutherford, Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline, 1658, SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 17).
…and the church is a true visible church in the wilderness… which yet wanted [lacked GB] circumcision and the passover forty years in the wilderness (Josh. 5:57), this proves that there is a true visible church, where Christ is, and yet wanteth the ordinary seals, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Samuel Rutherford, Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline, 1658, p. 17, emphases added).
4. Church discipline is not necessary to the essence or being of a true visible church.
But a church may retain the essence and being of a visible church, and yet have no discipline in actual use, or little, and though want [lack GB] of discipline do leaven a church, yet it does not (as Robinson says) evert the nature thereof, and turn it into Babylon and a den of dragons (Samuel Rutherford,The Due Right of Presbyteries, 1644, SWRB bound photocopy reprint, 1995, p. 288, emphases added).
To summarize, Rutherford and others do not make actual saving faith, ministry, sacraments or church discipline necessary to the existence of a true church essentially considered. Why? Because saving faith is the essence of the invisible church and does not pertain to the definition of the true visible church, and because ministry, sacraments and discipline, while necessary and profitable for the wellbeing of the church are not necessary to its existence or being. Seeing that Rutherford removes all of these things from his definition of an essentially true church, what is left to include? One mark, and one mark alone is necessary to the definition of a true church (esse), viz., profession of the truth.
A visible profession of the Truth and Doctrine of godliness, is that which essentially constitutes a visible church, and every member of the visible church (The Due Right of Presbyteries, 1644, SWRB reprint, 1995, p. 251, emphasis added).
Truth of Doctrine concurs to give being to the Church and to the constitution of it (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries, 1644, SWRB reprint, 1995, p. 285, emphasis added).
Any sort of profession, whether by an avowing of that Gospel to one another, or suffering for it, even when the shepherds are smitten and the flock is scattered is a very practical and speaking mark that such a company is a true church (Samuel Rutherford, Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline, 1658, SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 16).
And yet if these may be, to wit, hearing and professed receiving, here is an essential mark by which persons before they receive seals are made members and visible disciples, and societies visible and Churches essentially differenced, 1. From all the false churches visible upon earth, who have not the sound of the word preached and professedly heard and visibly received and 2. from all civil societies 3. from all Pagan and heathen societies on earth. Ergo they were a distinct Christian society, differenced essentially, and if they should all die before they had been baptized or had received the seals they have been true visible church members; and if killed for the truth they had died visible professing martyrs, and the called Church of Christ (Samuel Rutherford, Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline, 1658, SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 17).
Maria, this is my last post, but see the distinction being made. The key here is that with the visible testifying Christian church there is a faithful, elect and church in wellbeing ALL IN HISTORY.
While some churches have degraded to synagogues of satan, and some maybe antichrist, I suspect if you understand within the visible church there is a faithful remnant, and where is that located in history? They are not very visible, except to Christ their Husband, but think about it and look for it intensely. Ignore everything the anabaptists and her daughters teach.
——
To illustrate this in practical terms let us consider how Rutherford applies his definition to the Roman Catholic Church.
Speaking of the reason why the Reformers still consider the baptism of Rome to be valid (and therefore not to be repeated in a Protestant Church) Rutherford states:
Because their [those in Rome who received an invalid baptism by a midwife or a private person GB] profession of that covenant whereof baptism is a seal, separates them sufficiently from infidels though they want [lack GB] the seal external (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries, 1644, SWRB reprint, 1995, p. 239).
Notice that Rutherford says that even those in Rome who receive an invalid baptism by a midwife or a private person do profess the true covenant in such a way as to separate them from Infidels and Pagans. This is precisely the purpose of distinguishing between the being and wellbeing of the church. If we say that we receive the baptism of Rome then we must “essentially” receive the ministry of Rome which administers the baptisms. This is exactly what Rutherford concludes when he says,
These have a ministry essentially entire who have power under Christ to preach the Gospel and Administer the Sacraments, Matthew 28:19. The Romish priests have this, and are called to this by the church (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries, 1644, SWRB reprint, 1995, p. 240, emphasis added).
John Robinson, Rutherford’s Independent opponent from New England, objects,
How can England forsake the church of Rome and forsake the ministry within the church, as in the subject, especially, seeing you teach that a true ministry makes a true church (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries, 1644, SWRB reprint, 1995, p. 240).
Rutherford responds,
England may well separate from Rome everting the fundamental parts of faith and not separate from Rome’s baptism or ministry, in so far as they essentially be the ordinances of Christ (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries, 1644, SWRB reprint, 1995, p. 240, emphasis added).
Rutherford is applying his doctrine exactly the same way as Turretin, Calvin, and the divines of the Westminster Assembly. He teaches that one may lawfully separate from a church that is essentially true (as to being) when it is deformed as to its wellbeing. The Reformers do not profess separation from the true remnant of Rome which professes the true Gospel, but, from the Papal part of Rome that destroys the fundamentals of the truth. Though the ministerial Church of Rome still retained an essentially true ministry and valid baptism, the Papal tyranny inseparably attached to it was like a malignant tumor and these Reformers understood that this true church (esse) was something to denounce and avoid lest they die amidst her corruption. Is this not exactly what John Calvin is teaching when he says,
However when we categorically deny to the papists the title of the church, we do not for this reason impugn the existence of churches among them. Rather we are only contending about the true and lawful constitution of the church, required in the communion not only of the sacraments (which are signs of profession) but also especially of doctrine (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4.2.12, Translated by Ford Lewis Battles, emphases added).
Maria, ignore Walt, Rutherford is his Pope and the Scottish Reformers are his magisterium. He left Roman Catholicism in body only. Walt shows he has no Christian love for his separated brethren. He bearscfalse Witness of a brother in a bible church by calling him antibaptist. Here is what Calvin said about men like Walt. Institutes ” Others can sin from thoughtless zeal and pride. It is also a sin to be unloving and unnecessarily severe. When we say that the pure ministry of the Word and pure celebration of the sacraments are sufficient signs by which to recognize the Church, we mean that we should not write it off as long as these exist, although it may be ridled with other faults. There may be even shortcomings in the administration of the Word and sacraments, but this should not cut us off from fellowship” Walt, you judge me and bear false witness of me. When you go to communion know I have this against you K
What does it mean when someone says “this is my last post”?
Does it mean “forever” or “just until I want to post again”?
Walt and Kevin,
I don’t plan on ignoring either of you. Thank you for the things you’ve shared ! Right now I’m bleary eyed so that I can’t say more, except we need to pray for one another.
Maria
Maria, thanks, you are right, we need to pray for each other. I want to encourage you. There are many churches obeying Christ, teaching and listening to his word, and carrying on his mission. I hope you find one. My wife and I are in a wonderful church, a bible church, where the people are loving and the word of God is divided rightly. Beware of anyone claiming a form of infallibility. The WCF says reformed and always being reformed. No group of men, or any confession is beyond being reformed. We know what happened when men claimed that sort of thing before. Rome. The Reformers wrote their confessions in such away to stave that off. God bless. I’m so glad you have come here. Tim is shedding light, and its exciting. I can’t wait every week for the next article. incidentally Maria, Tim has given me much advice. He has attended a bible church, and now a Reformed Presbyterian church. If you have any questions I’m sure he would be very helpful. He is a loving man. God bless you sister.
God bless you too, Kevin! I hear you and understand what you’re saying about the possibility of finding a Biblical church, and about following no man or group of men while still honoring those who taught His Word rightly and whose works still speak to us. After all, God gave them to us. Sheep need constant care.
Heading over to Part 3 to read it today. Yes, Tim’s explanations of issues that remain crucial are very helpful to me. I pray that more people, who are discouraged, will know that the battle to preserve Biblical doctrine, worship, and life is still being waged successfully. The Lord doesn’t leave His Church alone!
Maria
Maria,
Keep focusing on the distinctions made above, and take time to meditate upon them and in time you will begin to see why there is a need to separate from the Baptist church. I don’t suggest you do it immediately without thought and prayer, but work on a few issues they are ignoring biblically, learn those items, and present them in a faithful manner to your Pastor for his opinion. It took me about 6 months to prepare my case before the Baptist minister, but in the end I knew he was going to rule against me no matter what Scripture taught. He had far to much to loose in salary and congregation if he decide to repent and believe.
Study these items…you will be doing just fine.
Walt,
Yes I will remember the distinction between a church esse and a church bene esse. People need true categories with which to think and examine what we see, especially about this.
We do see the need for separation from this group of believers, even practically, because who can worship and enjoy fellowship when there are constant sources of distress? And paganism has slipped in a different guises, and there isn’t enough Biblical doctrine to show it up for what it is.
God bless you for teaching me about these things. Pray I use this knowledge wisely, for this has been a long and painful journey. Talk to you later! With a prayer that our Sovereign Lord will comfort you over the distressing things you see,
Maria
Maria, Reformed Presbytyrians and Reformed Baptists rejoice together in the preaching of Soveriegn grace. There are differences. 2 main one’s. Reformed Presbytyrians believe the covenant made with Abraham continues into the NT and that infant baptism is entry into the covenant. Baptists believe in believers baptism. This was the predominant practice in the early church. Its not an easy subject. There isnt one instance of infant baptism in scripture, however there are household baptisms, and Peter says the promise iscfor you and your children. But, infant baptim in the Presbytyrian church doesnt regenerate people, save them. The Spirit working thru the Word regenerates a man. The other difference is church government. Although these differences arent small Reformed Baptists and Reformed Presbytyrians are dear brothers in Christ. I read Walts post, and he said when he confronted his baptist preacher, he didnt repent and believe. It sounds like to me Walt doesnt believe there is salvation outside the Reformed Presbytyrian church. Actype of Roman Catholicism. If you spent 3 years in a church that preached the gospel, I dont know if you were in sin. Anyway, you will findca good church. K
Kevin, thanks for explaining the two distinctives in doctrines about the ordinance of baptism, and church government! This is helpful. And yes, we are all brethren.
About find a Biblical church, yes, the Lord will lead us and I pray He gives wisdom and direction, and that we act on it. About our current church – whatever is not of faith is sin, and I encouraged my husband to attend this church when we were looking for one, knowing full well that we disagreed about the doctrine of the Lord’s sovereignty in salvation. This is why I asked the Lord’s forgiveness, and why I’m now praying for wisdom for my husband and taking his lead.
Thanks again! See you over at Part 3!
Maria
Kevin wrote:
“This was the predominant practice in the early church. Its not an easy subject. There isnt one instance of infant baptism in scripture, however there are household baptisms, and Peter says the promise iscfor you and your children.”
We have not one example of a women taking the Lord’s Supper in Scripture so by the logic of the believer only Baptists, no female should be permitted to attend the Lord’s Supper. The room was filled with men, and no women were allowed at the supper, thus I guess the Baptist logic settles that controversy too.
Unfortunately, Presbyterians do not interpret Scripture literally by using only authorized examples. In fact, we use specific command and draw necessary inferences using Scripture to interpret Scripture.
Therefore, we allow infants to be baptized and allow women to attend the Lord’s supper so we are consistent in our logic; which is contrary to the Anabaptist sects and her daughters.