Follow
This week we continue our series on the Bowls of Judgment in Revelation 16. The first four Bowls thus far are:
The First Bowl: The Stigmata (1224 A.D. – present)
The Second Bowl: The Plague of Scurvy (1453 – late 1700s A.D.)
The Third Bowl: The Dogma of Papal Infallibility (1870 A.D.)
The Fourth Bowl: Scorching by the Sun at Fátima (1917 A.D.)
The First Bowl was poured out “upon the earth” (Revelation 16:2), the Second “upon the sea” (Revelation 16:3), the Third “upon the rivers and fountains of waters” (Revelation 16:4) and the Fourth “upon the sun” (Revelation 16:8).
This Fifth Bowl is poured out directly “upon the seat of the beast” and the people “gnawed their tongues for pain” because of it (Revelation 16:10). We therefore note with no small interest that at the Third Bowl, when the Dogma of Papal Infallibility was proclaimed, the Pope was said to be infallible “when he speaks [with his tongue] ex cathedra [from his seat]” (Vatican Council I, Pastor Æternus, chapter IV). The Pope’s seat, from which he claims to speak infallibly, is the target of this Fifth Bowl, and his kingdom is thereby plunged into darkness.
It was at Vatican Council I that the Pope’s words were proclaimed to be self-attesting solely on account of who said them, (i.e., “irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church”), which is the prerogative of God’s Word alone, for only God’s Word is authoritative solely on account of Who said it. As we noted in They Hewed Out Broken Cisterns, at Vatican I the Word of God was subordinated to the Word of the Pope, by which means the people of the Roman Catholic religion were given blood to drink instead of the water of life (Revelation 16:6).
The Scripture says that when men reject the Word of God and do not repent of their error, He causes darkness to come upon them and sets a stumbling block before them, so that when they search for light, all they can find is darkness:
“Hear ye, and give ear; be not proud: for the LORD hath spoken. Give glory to the LORD your God, before he cause darkness, and before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains, and, while ye look for light, he turn it into the shadow of death, and make it gross darkness.” (Jeremiah 13:15-16)
Additionally, when a people chooses “our tongue” and “our lips” as a source of revelation, they have rejected the Word of God and have exalted “the vilest of men”:
“The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us? … The words of the LORD are pure words: … Thou shalt keep them, … The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.” (Psalms 12:3, 4, 7)
It is to the “infallible” words of the Pope that Roman Catholics go to “look for light,” and it is from their own tongue, their own lips in the persons of the Popes that they have sought knowledge. “Our lips, and our tongue will prevail,” they say. “Who is Lord over us?”
We note in both of the passages cited above that it is the “proud” who forsake the Word of God for their own “knowledge.” We know as well that it is to the Little Horn of Daniel 7 and to the Beast of Revelation 13 that “a mouth speaking great things” is given (Daniel 7:8, 20; Revelation13:5). The Pope’s claim to speak infallibly, and the subordination of God’s Word to his is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel 7:25 in which the Little Horn is said to “speak great words against the most High.”
To these the Lord says, “be not proud: for the LORD hath spoken”; to these, the Lord says that their own tongues “speaketh proud things,” but “The words of the LORD are pure words.” The ultimate choice to be made is between “our tongue” and His, between “our lips” and His, between “our word,” and His. Rome has made its bed, and as we shall see, Rome must now lie in it.
Because Rome rejected the counsel of God and has sought its own revelation apart from God’s Word, God has cursed them and made their light darkness, so that when they seek for light they are confounded in their quest. While they “look for light,” God “make[s] it gross darkness.”
That gross darkness has already come upon them. One of the most perplexing dilemmas facing Roman Catholics is their unwavering conviction that, on the one hand, the church must have an infallible pope in order to guide the sheep into truth, but on the other, that the sheep have absolutely no way of knowing when their pope has spoken infallibly. As one Roman Catholic woman acknowledged after reading our article Quid Pro Canon, this fact is quite unsettling. She posted her question at Catholic Answers forum—“Can Catholics easily know what has and has not been infallibly defined by the pope?”—and aptly summarized the dilemma for us:
“Kauffman concludes, then, that Catholics, therefore, cannot KNOW what is infallible truth and what isn’t. This, although IRRELEVANT to Sola Scriptura, which is the main subject of this article, is still very ground shaking!“
Indeed it is “ground shaking.” Her fellow Roman Catholics attempted to reassure her by providing an article by a Roman Catholic apologist on how to identify infallible statements. She responded,
“thanks for the link, but I think that confused me even more. … The situation is that the lack of consensus among the different Catholic apologists as to how many Infallible pronouncements Popes have promulgated … would seem [to suggest] that ‘each of the faithful’ cannot be certain… So it seems that the being CERTAIN, mentioned in the link you sent me, is really abstract and subject to interpretation as some of the most renowned apologists are not sure, not to speak of the untrained laity. … you cannot be sure what is infallible and what [is] not by simply reading what the Pope has said and how he’s said it. … this just emphasizes how confusing it is for the faithful to easily and immediately recognize that the Pope has taught something infallibly and that he hasn’t.”
This is the darkness into which Roman Catholicism has been plunged, and we can establish to the day when this Bowl of Judgment was poured out upon them.
The Fifth Bowl: The first and only papal statement in history to invoke “infallibility” (November 1, 1950)
Since Vatican Council I proclaimed that the pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, there has been only one instance in which he has explicitly invoked his own infallibility as a basis for proclaiming a doctrine. It was on November 1, 1950 when he proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption of Mary in Munificentissimus Deus. In that proclamation the pope claimed that he was issuing a doctrine “in an entirely certain and infallible way … and therefore absolutely without error” on the basis of his office alone (Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, 12).
Until then Roman Catholics, if they were even aware of papal infallibility, were only aware of it in the abstract. He was “infallible” in the execution of his office, when he “feed[s] my sheep” (John 21:15-17) and “strengthens thy brethren” (Luke 22:32) in his role “as the successor of Peter” (Pastor Æternus, IV), but no formal attempt was made to identify which times those were.
Thus, Cardinal Newman, himself a convert to Roman Catholicism prior to Vatican I, considered himself a “Minimizer,” in the sense that ex cathedra statements were few and far between and only on “things necessary for salvation” (Cardinal Newman, A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone’s Recent Expostulation, ”Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching,” vol. 2, ch. 9). In this work, Newman defers to a recent book by Bishop Joseph Fessler, The True and the False: Infallibility of the Popes, written just five years after the dogma of infallibility was proclaimed. In the book, Fessler sought to correct Protestant Dr. Schulte’s attempt to identify thirteen ex cathedra papal statements in history. Fessler concludes his analysis by assuring Roman Catholics that they are not bound to believe those thirteen statements to be infallible:
“Accordingly a Catholic who accepts on faith, in accordance with his obligation, the definition de fide of the Vatican Council on the Infallible teaching office of the Roman Pontiff, is in no way obliged to believe these thirteen propositions, which I have given word for word from his work, to be infallible utterances.” (Fessler, Joseph, The True and the False (New York: The Catholic Publication Society, 1875) p. 118)
Notably absent from Fessler’s analysis is any attempt to list which propositions the Roman Catholic is obliged to believe as ex cathedra utterances. The burden of the Roman Catholic apologist after 1870 but before 1950 was simply to show which statements were not ex cathedra, and in the case of Newman, to assure the flock that such a list is minimal anyway, and only relates to matters absolutely necessary for salvation.
But in 1950 all this changed. When Pius XII issued a papal statement that was formally ex cathedra, the matter emerged from its theoretical cocoon, and spread its wings into a fully blossomed reality that could no longer be ignored. Here in Munificentissimus Deus was a plainly ex cathedra papal utterance, and that raised the question in the minds of Roman Catholics—what is the list of ex cathedra papal utterances? Is this the only one? Are there more? If so, what are they?
Since then Roman Catholics have been on a quest to list them all, and to no avail, for they cannot even agree on when and why and how the pope speaks infallibly in the first place. James Akin assures his readers that many papal statements have been issued ex cathedra, including every time a pope canonizes a saint. But that is just his opinion. Another Roman Catholic apologist, Ronald Conte, denies that canonizations are ex cathedra for the simple fact that they are not “teachings” contained in the original deposit of faith:
“Is the canonization of a Saint a doctrine of faith or morals? No, it is a judgment and decision, made by proper authority in the Church, that a person lived an exemplary holy life and was faithful to the teachings of Christ and His Church. Canonization is not a teaching, so it cannot fall under the teaching authority of the Church.”
But that is not the only challenge to interpreting infallibility. One Roman Catholic claims that popes only speak ex cathedra “on less vital matters” of no consequence, and another claims that they only speak ex cathedra to address “a matter of great importance.” One Roman apologist says popes speak ex cathedra “only when some doctrine has been called into question.” Yet another apologist objects, and claims the opposite:
“Now, many people think that this ex cathedra, this official papal pronouncement defining dogma, is sort of like the ultimate way in which the pope resolves doctrinal controversies. That is the opposite of the truth.” (Scott Hahn, A Biblical Understanding of Mary)
One Roman apologist, William Most, says that for the pope to speak infallibly, no special form of words is needed: “If a Pope intends to make anything definitive, that is infallible. No special form of words is needed.” But the Catholic Encyclopedia says that a pope must make clear his intent to teach with fullness and finality by means of special forms of the words he chooses:
“Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, … These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.”
If there were a list of criteria by which a Roman Catholic could determine which papal statements are ex cathedra, that might help, but Rome’s apologists cannot even agree on this. We provide three Roman Catholic sources, each of which claims to know the criteria, and they cannot even agree on what they are:
William Most (two criteria):
“We conclude that all that is required is
[1] the intent to make an item definitive, plus
[2] writing in such a way as to make that intent clear.”
Scott Butler (three criteria):
“And this is the infallibility with which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when
[1] as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,
[2] by a definitive act
[3] he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.”
Catholic Encyclopedia (four criteria):
“the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:
[1]The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians…
[2] Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals…
[3] Further it must be sufficiently evident … that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense
[4] Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church.”
Are there two criteria? or three? or four? It does not take much time to realize that a statement that is ex cathedra using one set of criteria is not ex cathedra by another.
Which set should we use? Does the pope speak ex cathedra only on weighty matters or on less vital matters? Does he speak ex cathedra to resolve doctrinal disputes, or not? Does he need a special formula for his words, or does he not? Are canonizations ex cathedra or not? Does the pope speak ex cathedra only narrowly on “things necessary for salvation,” or broadly on all things related to faith and morals? Papal infallibility has truly yielded chaos among the sheep of Rome, but the chaos came only when Pope Pius XII actually mustered the fullness of his “apostolic authority” to proclaim an infallible dogma in 1950. Since then, Rome’s sheep have wandered in the dark, just as her trained apologists and scholars have.
In 1954 Roman Catholic priest, Leslie Rumble attempted to create a list, and his canon of ex cathedra statements included eighteen proclamations—although he acknowledged that he was not sure about four of them. In 1985, Klaus Schatz attempted to create a list of ex cathedra papal utterances. Seven such statements made the cut. In 1997, Adam Miller attempted to assemble a list of ex cathedra papal statements for his book The Final Word. His list contains eleven. Between these three “experts” alone, there are only four ex cathedra statements in common, although there are a total of twenty in their combined lists. A comparison of their three lists is shown below:
As the chart above demonstrates, Roman Catholics simply have no idea when a pope has spoken ex cathedra. It was in the midst of his own struggles to determine whether John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was also ex cathedra, that Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis complained in exasperation, “I wish that when the pope speaks infallibly, he would do so clearly!”
“The reason someone could question the infallible status of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is that the language John Paul II used in the decree gave some doubt as to whether he was making it infallible. This is why I said earlier that when the Church makes something infallible, I wish they would just do it plainly and clearly, as Canon 749.3 requires.” (Robert Sungenis, August 5, 2008).
But Rome’s scholars and apologists are not the only ones trapped in the darkness as they try to find light in the words spoken by the popes. The below catalogue of blind guesses and hopeless speculation by Roman Catholics demonstrates that there is not a Roman Catholic on earth who knows how many times the pope has spoken ex cathedra, and therefore there is not a Roman Catholic on earth who knows what the Pope has taught infallibly. The below sampling is not exhaustive, but it is representative, and is enough to elicit the sympathy of even the most battle-hardened Protestant apologist.
Roman Catholics have no idea whether the pope has spoken ex cathedra 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 30 or 40 times. Here is a catalogue of their collective groping in the dark:
“The Pope has only spoken ex cathedra One Time”:
Dominican Priest, John Vidmar, O.P. , writing in The Catholic Church Through the Ages: A History, (2005):
“So what had been accomplished by the definition of infallibility? … In fact, such a properly infallible statement has been proclaimed only once—in 1950—when Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary to be a doctrine of the church.” (p. 289)
Gary Wills, writing in his book, Why I Am a Catholic, (2002):
“Papal infallibility would, indeed, seem an insurmountable obstacle—but for the fact that it is a religious irrelevancy. … It has been used only once, to declare what the church had already believed without that pronouncement.” (p. xiii)
“…Two Times”:
Scott Hahn, former Protestant and now a Roman apologist, in his talk, A Biblical Understanding of Mary was speaking of the Immaculate Conception dogma (Ineffabilis Deus, Pius IX) proclaimed in 1854, and then continued:
“Now, we have to realize that the Holy Father has only stated dogmatically and infallibly a definition of a doctrine one other time: in 1950, with the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, both her body and soul.” (Hahn, A Biblical Understanding of Mary)
“Deacon Ed,” a Roman Catholic posting a response at Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) on how many times the pope has spoken ex cathedra :
“The question was how many times the pope has done this of his own accord, that is, ex cathedra. I repeat, most theologians agree that the pope has only done this twice: the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception. Those are the only two times the pope has, with the intention of binding all Christians with a definitive teaching, issued specific teaching.”
“…Three Times”:
Michael, a Roman Catholic, commenting on papal infallibility at The Black Cordelias, a Roman Catholic blog:
“The pope is not a divine loudspeaker, but a member of the Church with a prerogative to articulate precizely (sic), under strictly specified conditions, what the Church already believes; … Thus far he did it only three times, on relatively less vital matters.”
Sagart, a priest commenting at Thinking Catholicism, another priest’s blog:
“The infallibility of the Pope is a charism of the Holy Spirit for the good of the church. It does not mean the pope is always right – you should know this. Infallibility has been rarely used – only three times – apart from Church councils.”
“…Four Times”:
A Roman Catholic posting at Christian Forums attempting to clarify papal infallibility:
“Depending on whom you talk to, Papal infallibility has only been used 2-4 times in 2000 years.”
A Roman Catholic commenting on a blog site, CivFanatics, on the topic of papal infallibility:
“Actually, there are different kinds of infallibility, the two that I can remember are Papal Infallibility and Ecumenical Council Infallibility. Papal infallibility is very rare, used only four times.”
“…Five Times”:
A Roman Catholic posting a question at the Catholic Answers forum about how many times the pope has spoken ex cathedra:
“How many times, in the 2,004 years of the Church’s history, has a Pope spoken infallibly? I have been told that it has happened only five times and that three conditions have to be met before it can be done”
A Roman Catholic answering a question at Yahoo Answers about whether the Inquisition was invoked infallibly:
“In over 2000 years, infallibility has been invoked only five times, and the Crusades and Inquisition were not any of the five.”
“…Six Times”:
A Roman Catholic commenting on an AmericaBlog post about whether Pope Benedict was infallible:
“According to the church itself, this has happened only six times in history, and only in matters concerning fundamental dogma.”
A Roman Catholic commenting at Yahoo Answers about whether popes can contradict each other:
“It must be pronounced from the chair of Peter which is his sign of authority. Some people say this has only happened only six times in history.”
“…Seven Times”:
At a Roman Catholic blog, Modern Catholic Theology, under the topic of papal infallibility:
“Over the course of the Church’s 2000 year history, the authority of infallibility has been invoked only seven times, the last by Pius XII in 1950 when he defined the Assumption of Mary.”
A Roman Catholic commenting at The One Ring, a site dedicated to J. R. R. Tolkien, attempting to clarify the use of papal infallibility:
“Except that most people don’t actually understand how Papal Infallibility works. It doesn’t work the way you think it means. … It’s happened only seven times in history.”
“…Eight Times”:
A Roman Catholic posting at MediaRealism, attempting to clarify the significance of papal infallibility:
“The pope is only considered infallible when he speaks ex cathedra which means “from the chair.” Only eight times in the 2000 year history of Christianity has a pope spoken ex cathedra meaning that the statement is a formal belief of the church.”
A Roman Catholic, posting at the Catholic Answers forum on the topic of the Immaculate Conception:
“I believe that speaking ex cathedra has happened only eight times in the history of the Church.”
“…Nine Times”:
A Roman Catholic posting under the name John Paul III at the Catholic Answers forum on the topic of papal infallibility:
“I have had a hard time in this teaching because it seems that the Church has spoken ex cathedra only 9 times or less.”
A Roman Catholic posting at Free Republic, on the topic of papal infallibility:
“Only when he speaks through is role in the office of the papacy are his statements anything more than opinions or suppositions. … If you say, ‘what doctrine has ever met the latter standard?’ you would not be surprised to find it has only been used three to nine times.”
“…Ten Times”:
A Roman Catholic at a Christian Guitar discussion forum on the topic of the Bible as the word of God:
“Popes don’t speak ex cathedra very often, I believe it’s happened less than 10 times in the history of the Church. . …I told you I’m not sure exactly how many times. 10 is a guess. It’s not much more or less than that, though. It’s a very VERY small number of times.”
A Roman Catholic posting at International Skeptics, trying to correct them all on their view of infallibility:
“You are all at sea regarding the infallibility of the Pope. He is only infallible (this means merely that what he teaches ‘ex cathedra’ is true) on extremely rare occasions. There may have only been ten ‘infallible’ statements ever.“
“…Eleven Times”:
Adam S. Miller in his book, The Final Word, assures us that he has the right list when he says his booklet contains,
“…a listing of ex cathedra Papal pronouncements on matters of doctrine. …what the Catholic Church has defined as those truths formally revealed by God and necessary for belief.” (Miller, Adam S., The Final Word, (Gaithersburg, MD: Tower of David Publications, ©1997), pg. 2)
His proposed canon of ex cathedra statements is eleven.
“…Twelve Times”:
A listener to Radio Replies, a Roman Catholic Radio program in Sydney Australia, lamenting that he cannot find the list of ex cathedra papal statements:
“I have been told, and have read in books, that there are not more than a dozen or so of these “ex cathedra” infallible pronouncements by various Popes; but even so nowhere have I been able to find what they are.”
A Roman Catholic participant in an online discussion group at Marquette University in answer to the question, “If the pope is infallible, why has he apologized for mistakes?”
“Because it’s only been used about a dozen times. There have been no apologies after infallibility has been invoked.”
“…Thirteen Times”:
A Protestant interacting at a Baptist discussion forum on the question of whether Roman Catholicism’s claims are true:
Protestant: “Bob, from memory I believe that the Pope must speak in “Ex-cathreda” mode to be “infallible”. I also think this has been done (according to different sources) either nine or 13 times in the history of RCC. Really a very small number of times.”
To this, a Roman Catholic participating in the forum responded:
Catholic: “you’re correct in regards to Papal Infallibility.”
“…Fourteen, Sixteen or Eighteen Times”:
Roman Catholic priest, Leslie Rumble, in his answer to the listener who thought there had been “a dozen or so” ex cathedra papal statements, provides a list of 18 ex cathedra papal statements that have been issued throughout Roman Catholic history. But he is not quite sure. Next to items 16 and 17, he adds this caveat:
“[These] Two utterances very probably comply with the requirements of an ‘ex cathedra’ decision…”
Thus, of his eighteen, there are two that are “probably comply with” ex cathedra standards, but he does not know with certainty. Perhaps there are only 16 such statements. But next to items 12 and 13, he added yet another clarification:
“There are some Catholic theologians who hold that, although these two decrees of Pope Leo XIII are of the utmost authority, they still fall short of technical requirements for infallible ‘ex cathedra’ utterances.”
Thus, of his eighteen statements, there are two that he has acknowledged are “probably” ex cathedra (and therefore might not be), and two more that “fall short” of the standards for ex cathedra, (and therefore probably are not). Perhaps therefore, there are only fourteen.
“…Fifteen Times”:
A Roman Catholic explaining on an online discussion forum, that the pope does not make infallible statements about things as trivial as gay marriage:
“It has probably only been done less than 15 times in two millenia, and concern stuff like believing that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. That kind of thing.”
A Roman Catholic at the Catholic Answers discussion forum explaining that Protestants are constantly and needlessly over-emphasizing the significance of papal infallibility:
“You misunderstand INFALLIBILITY quite a bit…the conditions for INFALLIBLE statements by the Pope have been met like some 15 times in 2000 years…a lot of hubbub from the Prots for something used about every 150 years.”
“…Eighteen Times”:
Brian, a Roman Catholic in a Catholic Answers discussion forum attempting to answer the question, “How many times, in the 2004 years of the Church’s history, has a Pope spoken infallibly?”, and acknowledging that “nobody knows”:
“To my knowledge, nobody knows…or at least nobody can provide a number that every Catholic agrees on. From Catholic apologists, I’ve read anywhere from 2 to 18 times...“
“…Twenty Times”:
A Roman Catholic attempting to answer a question at Yahoo Answers about whether popes can contradict each other:
“You have to understand, Papal infallibility applies only when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra. This, I understand, has only happened about 20 times in the past 2000 years.”
A Roman Catholic responding to a satirical eulogy for John Paul II:
“[By the way], in Catholicism, the Pope is not considered infallible, except when speaking ex Cathedra, which has only happened about 20 times in 2000 years.”
“…Twenty-five Times”:
A Roman Catholic, commenting at an online Marriage Forum, attempting to clarify when a pope is considered infallible:
“The only thing that is considered in fallible are certain statements/teachings made by the Pope. These statements must go through the College of Cardinals before they can be considered infallible. This has only happened about 25 times in history.”
“…Thirty Times”:
A “transitional deacon” writing at a Catholic Blog, In and Out of the Ditch, attempting to explain infallibility:
“The pope has only invoked infallibility according to our definition about 30 times in our whole history.”
“…Forty Times”:
, writing at Roman Catholic apologetics web site, First Things:
“…the bishop of Rome is only teaching with the highest level of authority, infallibility, under certain conditions as defined by the First Vatican Council. This power has only be[en] used a small number of times in history: different theologians peg the number somewhere between two and forty times.”
These lamentable guesses are best summed up by the man posting at Catholic Answers: “To my knowledge, nobody knows.”
The truth is, Roman Catholics have no idea how many times the pope has spoken ex cathedra, and therefore they have no way of knowing how many times he has not. We note that when Vatican I defined Papal Infallibility in the dogmatic constitution Pastor Æternus, the dogma was considered to be implicit in Jesus’ command for Peter to “feed My sheep” (John 21:15-17) and His prayer for Peter to “strengthen thy brethren” (Luke 22:32). Thus, it is the pope’s teaching ministry that ostensibly makes the infallibility doctrine necessary. Otherwise, the Pope, without such a dispensation of infallibility, might lead the church into error.
Catholic Answers implicitly acknowledges the significance of this problem when they insist that for the church to exist at all, and for men to be saved, “they must know what is to be believed,” and that is accomplished through papal infallibility:
“But he [the Pope] must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists. Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true.” (Catholic Answers, Papal Infallibility)
And those solemn papal definitions would be … which ones, exactly?
As we demonstrated above, there is not a Roman Catholic on earth who knows the answer to that question. The logical implications of the inability of “the sheep” and “the brethren” to determine when the pope is “feeding” and “strengthening” them has left the Roman Catholic but three unpalatable choices:
1) To submit blindly to every single teaching of every pope, or
2) To examine every papal statement, determine which ones are consistent with the teachings of the church and what you believe to be true, and submit to those teachings only, or
3) To concede that it simply doesn’t matter whether Christ had left a pope for His church or not.
In fact, it is precisely to these three outcomes that the dark path leads them. One Roman Catholic, attempting to help sort out the conundrum, chooses option 1:
“For Catholics it’s not that important. We should not be taking a minimalist approach. Infallible or not, teachings from the Pope or Magisterium in communion with the Pope are authoritative teachings that we could not go wrong in obeying.”
In passing, we simply note that this is exactly what Catholics think Protestants get wrong about infallibility. If we provide examples of an errant papal statement, as Dr. Shulte did, the Catholic will respond as Bishop Fessler did, claiming that he is not obligated to submit to non-ex cathedra statements. What he will not acknowledge, but knows in his heart, is that he does not know which ones those are.
Another Roman Catholic, posting at the blog of former Presbyterian, now Roman Catholic, Jason Stellman, chooses option 2, saying whatever the popes have intended to speak infallibly is probably contained in the Catechism, and we can just submit to that instead of finding a list of ex cathedra statements:
“The Catechism of the Catholic Church may play the role that you are looking for from the Ex Cathedra statements of the Popes in terms of ‘knowing what the Church believes.'”
A different Roman Catholic posting at the same blog also chooses option 2, claiming that the inability to produce a list of infallible papal statements is not a problem, because if there was ever uncertainty, the church could just call a council to sort things out:
“Theoretically, your list can be created. Practically, I don’t see anyone ever doing it. Which is NOT a problem for a Catholic, because if some particular issue becomes problematic, Catholics can always call an Ecumenical Council to sort things out. Like they did at Trent.”
Unable to determine when the pope is speaking infallibly, the Roman Catholic must go to the Catechism or to Ecumenical Councils of the church, compare those teachings to the teachings of the popes, and determine which papal statements are consistent with church teachings, and then submit only to those papal statements—the very thing Vatican I said they ought never to do. Vatican I said that infallible papal statements “are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church” (Pastor Æternus, chapter IV), but the Roman Catholic is forced to ignore that and examine each papal statement to determine if the church “consents” to it!
To see this process in action, we provide Sungenis’ analysis of Mulieris Dignitatum, a statement from John Paul II on the dignity of women. Notice that instead of considering John Paul II’s words to be “authoritative teachings that we could not go wrong in obeying” (option 1), Sungenis evaluates them first to find out whether the church consents to such teaching (option 2):
“If John Paul II was only teaching that there is a practical mutual submission between spouses, we need not worry too much, for husbands and wives submit to each others needs and desires quite often. But if he was teaching that there is a legal mutual submission, such that the command of St. Paul for the wife to be in submission to her husband as regards her legal posture means that the husband is also required to be legally submissive to his wife, then that is a highly erroneous teaching that has never once been taught in Catholic tradition, and we would have the right to refuse it.” (Robert Sungenis, Mutual Submission of Spouses)
So much for “it is allowed to none … to sit in judgment upon what it has judged”—the words of Pope Nicholas I that were used to justify papal infallibility (Pastor Æternus, chapter IV, fn 22). In Rome, apparently, “not from the consent of the church” means “from the consent of the church,” and the sheep is forced “to sit in judgment” of the teachings of which he is forbidden “to sit in judgment”!
The problem with option 2 is that neither councils nor catechisms nor tradition—nor the sheep who interpret them—are imbued with Petrine infallibility the way the pope is alleged to be. Although Rome claims that its Ecumenical Councils are infallible, the commands to “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17) and “strengthen thy brethren” (Luke 22:32) were addressed not to Catechisms or to Councils or to Tradition, but to Peter. That is why those verses are used to justify Papal Infallibility for his successors, and that is why it is forbidden to appeal to an Ecumenical Council to correct or clarify a papal statement:
“Therefore, they stray from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an Ecumenical Council, as if to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.” (Pastor Æternus, chapter III).
For Roman Catholics to send confused “sheep” and “brethren” to the Catechism and the Councils and Tradition to find out if “Peter” is teaching the truth, is to acknowledge tacitly that the office of the papacy serves no useful purpose at all, and that the job of the pope is actually done better by the catechisms, councils and tradition.
To that end, another Roman Catholic, Mike, interacting at a Catholic Answers discussion forum chooses option 3. He gave up and simply declared that it does not matter whether a teaching is infallible or not. The important thing is that it is taught:
“Serious question: why does it matter? What difference does it make if A is taught by the Church infallibly, and B is simply taught by the Church?”
Mike’s question, “What difference does it make?” is resonant of Gary Wills’ observation above, that papal infallibility “is a religious irrelevancy.” That is rather faint praise for the teaching ministry of Peter’s successors coming from the sheep that they are supposed to be shepherding. The difference it makes, Mike, is that Fessler spent considerable time identifying for Schulte thirteen papal propositions that Roman Catholics were not obliged to obey. That is what difference it makes.
Blindly attempting to sort out these three options is where Roman Catholics were left when Pius XII, for the first and only time in the history of the Roman Catholic church, invoked papal infallibility to define a dogma. Once he used his infallible authority to declare a doctrine, he moved papal infallibility out of the theoretical realm and into the practical, making every papal statement in history a candidate for infallibility. By doing so, he made each one a candidate for analysis by the sheep to determine if it was food, and by the brethren to determine if it was nutritious. Because it is impossible for Roman Catholics to determine which ones are infallible, and because Roman Catholics are nonetheless obligated to submit to his infallible teaching authority, they are left in utter darkness—believing whatever it is that he is teaching, but unable to know what that is.
But it is not so with Christ. Christ came into the world to give us an understanding, and that we might know Him, and by Him, the truth of God:
“And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” (1 John 5:20)
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
Christ has made Himself known to us by the Scriptures, and by them “we may know Him that is true” and be “throughly furnished.” There is nothing that we need to know about Jesus Christ that we do not know from His written Word.
Roman Catholics ask us how we know with certainty that we have the right canon of Scriptures, and they offer the pope as the solution so that we may “know what is to be believed.” We therefore ask in return “what is to be believed?”, and they do not know because the pope cannot tell them. We’ll keep our Bibles, thank you very much.
Roman Catholic apologist, Robert Sungenis, captured the pain and darkness of the Fifth Bowl when he was trying to determine whether John Paul II’s statement Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, was declared infallibly. Unable to prove it one way or the other, he essentially demoted papal infallibility to a meaningless, baffling and confusing quagmire of contradiction and tedious hair-splitting that is nonetheless, mysteriously necessary for the purity of the church:
“As good as the doctrine of infallibility is, nevertheless, because of its self-imposed restricted domain as to when it is applicable, it invariably creates a whole new set of problems, one chief problem being how we determine whether a specific Church teaching is infallible. Often the Church does not explicitly and unequivocally state that a given doctrine is infallible. Odd as it may seem, the words “infallible” or “irreformable” are not used in dogmatic proclamations. Even the four criteria for papal infallibility established in the decree of Pius IX in 1870 do not make it foolproof for the cleric or the layman to determine when, precisely, a given papal teaching is infallible, since the doctrine in question, ironically, is never preceded by the explicit words: “This teaching is an infallible and irreformable declaration of the Catholic Church for it fulfills all four criteria of the doctrine of papal infallibility.” Adding to the debate, the 1983 Code of Canon Law states that if the Church does not explicitly declare a doctrine infallible, then it is not to be considered infallible. The whole process can easily become a quagmire of distinctions and counter-distinctions that turn that which was at first intended to be a simple help to the difficulties of life into tedious, hair-splitting legalese that often confuses more than it clarifies.” (Robert Sungenis, Pope Sixtus V, the Latin Vulgate, and Papal Infallibility)
We will come to the aid of our hapless Roman apologist, if only to make our point. He denies that “infallible” and “irreformable” have ever been used in a dogmatic proclamation, but that is not true. They have been only once—in Munificentissimus Deus on November 1, 1950. In that papal proclamation the word “infallible” and the concept of irreformability is plainly expressed, for Pope Pius XII staunchly insisted that he was teaching “in an entirely certain and infallible way,” and that “it is forbidden to any man to change this.” These are unequivocal expressions of irreformability and infallibility. But Sungenis is right to say that they have never been used any other time. Pius XII’s singular use of them is precisely why Rome’s apologists find themselves in this unenviable and intractable position now.
Yet it is not only the Roman Catholic apologists who feel this pain. It is the common churchgoer, too. Another such Catholic, wandering in the darkness of the Fifth Bowl, cried out for help to Karl Keating, the founder and president of Catholic Answers:
“If Mr. Keating could pipe in on this, I would appreciate it! Just how do we know when the Pope is teaching ex cathedra?”
Somebody? Anybody?
Mr. Keating did not respond, because Mr. Keating does not know.
That cry for help—and Sungenis’ pitiable frustration, and Keating’s ominous silence, and the apologists’ hopelessly irreconcileable lists, and the Catholic woman’s lamentably “ground shaking” realization of what she cannot possibly ever know, and the one billion Roman Catholics with no clue which of the pope’s statements are to be believed—is the sound of Roman Catholics gnawing their tongues in pain because of the darkness caused by the Fifth Bowl that was poured out on the seat of the Beast through Pius XII’s 1950 proclamation, the one and only formally ex cathedra papal statement in the history of the Roman Catholic Church.
Next week, we will conclude our series on the Bowls of Revelation 16.
I think we need the real expert opinion of both Jim and Bob to give us the EXACT correct number of infallible statements.
There are not any more people than these guys who are dedicated to the Romish church and her theological doctrines.
Thanks, Walt. It is certainly Gordian Knot for Roman Catholics. They insist that a pope is necessary to guide us infallibly (or else the church may fall into error), but cannot tell us when he is infallibly guiding (or is leading into error). I find it interesting how important a written canon is to a Roman Catholic apologists until he realizes that he cannot produce one. Suddenly, a canon isn’t that big of a deal.
Tim
WALT–
I’ll agree with you that Catholics have shot themselves in the foot by declaring Papal Infallibility. And that is my EXPERT OPINION (if there is such a thing). Just because the Pope claims he is speaking ex-cathedra doesn’t make it infallible. Truth is truth no matter who speaks it. Truth in itself is infallible.
Now that being said, is there any Church or anyone in particular that can proclaim the Truth infallibly and it be binding on all Christians–Reformed, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or any others who call themselves followers of Jesus Christ?
If the answer is yes, then please tell me who so that I may listen to him? (And don’t tell me “The Holy Spirit” because all denominations and apologists say the same thing and yet disagree. And that is an inconvenient truth.)
If the answer is no, then the Fifth Bowl Judgement cannot single out the Papacy to be judged. All Christians are in the dark as long as there is disagreement in doctrine. All Christians acknowledge that the defined canon of Holy Scripture bears witness to the Truth infallibly. But why is it that all Christians do not agree to what the Scriptures say?
If they did, there would be only one Church and not countless denominations.
Walt, do you believe all the teachings of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland are infallible and should be binding on all Christians?
Tim, do you believe that all of the teachings of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland are infallible and should be binding on Presbyterians?
Bob, to answer the portions of this comment addressed to me:
But there is only one denomination that claims to speak infallibly from its seat. I know of no Christian denomination that does so. The Fifth Bowl is not read in isolation, as if history randomly unfolded, and then suddenly there is a Bowl of Judgment poured out on the seat of the Beast. The Seals, Trumpets and Bowls have been repeatedly targeted at the geographic entity encompassing the Roman Empire, or the Former Roman Empire, and its geopolitical interests. I know you do not agree with my eschatology. I did not expect you to. If the Papacy is the Beast, then the Fifth Bowl of Judgment very much singles out the Papacy to be judged.
Because we are all still learning, as the Church comes to full stature:
The error of Rome, and of the ecumenical movement in general, is to think that “the unity of the faith” must include those who deny the Gospel, and must include a global infrastructure administered by a single man. The Church is unified under a single Man. Just not under the pope.
No, I do not, although I do find it most interesting that there was a Church in Scotland long before there was ever a pope in Rome.
Thanks,
Tim
Guys,
I wouldn’t bother being a member of any church that doesn’t at least make the claim to speak for God.
As for Tim’s goofy theories, he picks this or that from history completely ignoring the historical concept. His assertion that because there was an explosion of Eucharistic devotion at a point in history, that is absolute proof the devil was behind it.
For instance, the codpiece became fashionable in gentlemen’s attire about the same time Francis of Assisi lived. Before becoming a zealous Christian, he had been a fashion plate. Tim completely ignores the significance of this important sartorial development and its connection to Catholic doctrine.
Jim, you wrote,
I have never asserted any such thing.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “The error of Rome, and of the ecumenical movement in general, is to think that “the unity of the faith” must include those who deny the Gospel, and must include a global infrastructure administered by a single man. The Church is unified under a single Man. Just not under the pope.”
So, under whose authority do you make that assertion?
Bob,
Under the authority of Jesus Christ, the head of the Church:
Thanks,
Tim
That’s funny, because the Roman Church claims the same thing.
Why should I believe you?
Bob, to your question:
You should not. Nor do I ask you to. Nor do I expect you to. You should believe the Scriptures.
The Scriptures identify Roman Catholicism as antichrist, and Jesus’ Church has historically recognized her as such. It is not my prerogative, nor is it my responsibility, to open your eyes to this fact. However, I am bound by the imperatives of Scripture to tell you about it.
This leaves us in a state of polite conversation, of course—me expounding Scripture, and you rejecting my interpretation—and I’m glad to have this conversation with you.
Tim
Tim,
“Jesus’ Church”? And how do we know you represent Jesus’ Church”
TIM–
You said: “This leaves us in a state of polite conversation, of course—me expounding Scripture, and you rejecting my interpretation—and I’m glad to have this conversation with you.”
Aye, there’s the rub–you quoting Scripture and not just me rejecting your interpretation. So, your interpretation has no more authority than any other believer who has a working knowledge of Scripture. Now that we have established that,
you can quote me scripture with your spin on it, and I can quote Scripture with my spin on it, and there is no one with the authority to make a decision on which interpretation is the right one, correct?
Then I can conclude that all of this dialogue is merely for entertainment. So when you urge a Catholic to “come out from Her” with no authority to make a judgement of Roman error or apostacy, why is a Catholic who believes in infallible authority of the Catholic Church supposed to believe your fallible opinion?
Bob,
You obviously have never read Tim’s brilliant work up on the book of Revelation. He spent 24 years developing it. To date, only Kevin is impressed by it but Walt is considering it.
Bob, just like we have the biblical mandate to tell people who have believed on Christ that their sins have been forgiven, and we have the mandate to baptize someone who has believed, we have the mandate to warn you about false teaching. If someone tells me there is a fire in my house and my wife is in there, I’m not going to ask them if they are infallible to decide to act. The scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof, and training in righteousness. Christ as head is infallible, His word is infallible, you can take that to the bank.
Hey Kev!
Glad to see the Spiceman is back on the air to liven things up.
You said “If someone tells me there is a fire in my house and my wife is in there, I’m not going to ask them if they are infallible to decide to act.”
How true. But if you find out it was just a prank and not true, then you will take any other words from that someone with a grain of salt. Ever heard of “the boy who cried wolf”?
Tim,
What say ye to Justin Martyr’s comment to Trypho about the Clean Oblation of Malachi?
That was a bit before the 1000 year date you like to think saw the first mention of the Catholic Eucharist.
Jim, You wrote,
I have never alleged that there was no mention of the Eucharist prior to the 11th century.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
What exactly did you mention? This is getting very confusing Tim.
By the way, you say you worked on this theory for 24 years, yes? So you know how your series of articles is going to end, right?
Then why do I get a feeling you are making this up as we go along? When did you decide to interject Fatima into your scheme?
As for the Mark of the Beast, are you sure it is not the Obama chip?
Jim, you wrote,
To which I responded:
To which you responded:
I said there is no evidence of Eucharistic Adoration prior to the 11th century. If you believe you have such evidence, please provide it. Setting aside bread for later use, or to keep it out of reach of thieves and brigands is not evidence of Eucharistic Adoration. Every historian of Eucharistic Adoration knows very well that there is simply no evidence of Eucharistic Adoration prior to the 11th century:
Now if, as you say, Augustine was advocating for Eucharistic adoration when he said, “but no one eats of this flesh without having first adored it . . . and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would be sinning if we did not do so” (see Mysterium Fidei, 55), how is it that Roman Catholics went 1000 years being taught by their church to sin by not adoring “His flesh” before eating it? How could Roman Catholics go 1,000 years without bowing before the “presence of God”? I could see a Roman Catholic here or there forgetting to kneel one Sunday, or maybe being so exhausted from his lenten fast that he just didn’t remember to bow. But everyone? And for 1,000 years?
Again, if you believe you have evidence of Eucharistic adoration prior to 1000, please provide it. The veracity of Antichrist’s global false religion is depending on you. You continued,
I don’t know why you are getting that feeling.
I have been “interjecting” Fátima into my “scheme” since I first became a believer. When I first started to study the Bowls, however, I realized something peculiar about Fátima—almost all of the Apparitions make the sun come down, or appear to get closer, and this is consistent with the power of the False Prophet:
But there is something that is out of the power of the Apparition, and that is to scorch men with the fire that it causes to come down. That power resides not with the False Prophet, but with the Fourth Angel:
The ability to scorch men with fire is not within the power of the False Prophet. Thus, it was not only the crowd gathered at Fátima that was surprised when people complained of the great heat that was about to burn them alive. The Apparition was surprised, too. Since then, the apparition has tried to replicate the event by adding a “crackling” sound to the Miracle of the Sun, in order to give the impression of burning fire (as at Heroldsbach, in 1949), but it is only at Fátima that “heat” was reported. Quite interesting, indeed.
Thanks,
Tim
Jim,
Justin Martyr, explicitly states that Malachi 1:11 is fulfilled in the Gentiles’ offering of the Eucharist.
In the previous chapter, however, Justin Martyr explicitly states that after Christ’s suffering and death on the cross, all sacrifices cease:
Meanwhile back in chapter XLI, Justin Martyr explains just what kind of “offering” the Eucharist was in the early church:
In other words, after Christ’s death, all sacrifices cease, and the Eucharist is a “thank offering” in which Christians gather to thank God for having already cleansed them. You may take note, for example, that the “fine flour” to which Justin Martyr refers is from Leviticus 14:10 & 21, and the flour is offered not to heal the leper, but because the leper is already healed. This is the sense in which Justin Martyr likens the “fine flour” offering of a cured leper to the Eucharist which is not to represent Christ’s sufferings to the Father, but rather “in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are [already] purified.”
There was no “sacrifice of the Mass” in the early church. The Roman Catholic sacrifice of the Mass was a later innovation, as was Eucharistic adoration.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, instructive. Justyn Martyr restating what the writer of Hebrews does 10:18 ” there remains no more sacrifices for sin” Bryan Cross once argued to me that meant animal sacrifices. I thought that was clever reaching to support Catholic doctrine.
Tim,
WOW! Of course all sacrifice has ceased if you mean the sacrifices mentioned in Hebrews 9:26. Christ only suffered once.
The fact that Christ died once and entered into glory is exactly why He can be offered over and over as Malachi says.
Tim, because the language required to explain certain doctrines had not been developed yet does not mean the concept did not exist. For example, the Immaculate Conception and Transubstantiation had to wait until the doctrines of Original Sin and Aristotilian terms had been articulated.
If you have responded to my post about all the Churches such as the Malabars on the coast of Goa, which had had no contact with Rome from the 7th century on, share the same doctrines as Rome on the Eucharist, I haven’t seen it.
Jim, I think this is one of the most insightful explanations of the antiquity of Roman Catholicism:
Yes, the evidence for early Romanism is “invisible, except to the eye of the Catholic.” The error of Rome is to think that because Roman Catholicism is currently engaging in practices that cannot be found in the early church, therefore Rome’s current practices must be what God intended all along. That is what happens when the church is the object of your faith.
When the Scriptures are the object of your faith, it becomes clear that Rome’s current practices are foreign to the Scriptures, and therefore, Roman Catholicism is a later development and is not the Church Jesus Christ founded.
It all comes down to the object of your faith. The object of your faith is the church, and the church cannot save you.
Tim
Tim wrote:
“When the Scriptures are the object of your faith, it becomes clear that Rome’s current practices are foreign to the Scriptures, and therefore, Roman Catholicism is a later development and is not the Church Jesus Christ founded.”
You might say that Christ is the object of our faith, and the Scriptures are a means to drive the person to that object of our faith.
Thanks, Walt,
Certainly Christ is the One in whom we trust. My particular phrase here is to distinguish sola scriptura from sola ecclesia. Like Abraham, we believe the Word of God unto justification. As Jesus said, “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me” (John 5:46). In other words, if you believe the Scriptures, you will believe in me. The pharisees did not believe in Jesus, because they did not really believe the Scriptures.
But yes, certainly, Christ is the object of our faith and He is revealed to us in the Bible not on the altar.
Tim
Kev,
I thought I smelled your rotten breath.
No Kevin, what you are smelling are Tim’s feet as you lick his boots.
Jim, you wrote to Kevin:
No Kevin, what you are smelling are Tim’s feet as you lick his boots.
At least Kevin (or anyone who likes Tim’s work) doesn’t call him a god and angel. This belongs to your boot lick cult. The prima donna bishops really like it.
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.
Kevin,
Glad you are back. Tim’s shoes need some shining. While you are at it, could you press his trousers?
Later this evening, fold down his bed and lay out his pijamas after you have run his bath.
And he would like you to start addressing him as “sire”.
That will all for now. You are dismissed.
Tim,
Do any of the fathers before 1000 A.D. speak of an “altar”? Is the word found in the New testament in connection with the Eucharist?
Yes? What is an altar for?
By the way, as for your rebuttal on Justin, “Eucharist” means “thanksgiving”.
How does that deny adoration, impetration and propitiation?
Tim,
Burning incense is a priestly act, yes? It is even used in the Bible to propitiate God’s wrath, isn’t it? IOW, it is a sacrifice.
Can you find any references to men performing priestly acts in the New Testament? You know, things like forgiving sins, anointing, burning incense, etc.?
Who offers sacrifice? Priests, yes?
Did Jesus use priestly or sacrificial language at the Last Supper when He commissioned the Apostles to do likewise?
Did He say the bread and wine were His Body and Blood “given TO you” or did He say, “given FOR you”? And for the remission of sin?
Jim, Hebrews 10:14 ” for by one offering He perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. 18 ” there remains no more sacrifice for sins, Jim, its finished and the church sings the amen as we witness to a past event that saved us, not made us saveable. He reconciled us, not put us in a state of reconciliation based on our obedience. It all grace.
Tim,
Another thought on your Justin rebuttal.
Why do people. cleansed once for all, need to continue to offer any offering whether a thanksgiving or propitiatory purposes.
You just said the word “offering” did you not?
Let me help you answer; because cleansed people need to offer sacrifice to stay cleansed.
Look at the principle in the O.T. Just men, justified by Faith according to Hebrews, offered sacrifice.
Abel, Job, Noah,Abraham, all offered sacrifice before Moses and the Law.
God demanded sacrifice. What is sacrifice? Just mental praise and thanksgiving? Even after forgiving David, the plague didn’t abate until he had offered the sacrifice God wanted. Notice this; Justified David was required to offer sacrifice although he was already forgiven!
Look at Job’s friends. God obviously was disposed to forgive them but not before asking Job to sacrifce 7 bullocks for them
The OT ceremonies were visible, sensible, physical. That is because we are too. The interior dispositions of penitence or thanks need to reverberate in the sensible. We are not pure spirits like the angels.
The OT rites were shadows of better things to come. Men still need to offer something to God. Human nature is still human nature.
And Christ did not rise from the dead a pure spirit as the J.W.s like to say.
Protestants deny that we still need to offer sacrifice to God for thanksgiving, adoration and propitiation.
Jim, in response to your comment, “because cleansed people need to offer sacrifice to stay cleansed,” I think you need to revisit Justin Martyr. His connection of the lepers flour offering and the Eucharist is spelled out explicitly. The leper does not offer fine flour to get or stay cleansed, as if he kept on getting leprosy, but out of gratitude for having been cleansed. When Justin makes that link, he makes that particular connection explicitly, and says we celebrate the Eucharist because we have already been cleansed, not in order to be continually re-cleansed.
In his dialogue, Justin continues by explaining that the only offering or sacrifice being made is a sacrifice of thanks and praise, in which Christ’s passion is brought to mind, not re-enacted or re-presented, to God:
Here, Justin says the Eucharistic “sacrifice” is prayers and thanks alone—prayers and thanks “effected by their solid and liquid food”—calling to mind that What had already done. I know of no Protestant who would object to such a characterization. In other words, the bread is not the sacrifice. Thanks and prayers alone are what are sacrificed. The prayers and thanks for what God had done, as we are reminded by the bread and wine, are the sacrifice, in accordance with Scripture:
You continued,
Yes, I understand Jim. Origen did not have the term, “Immaculate Conception,” so he had to throw around terms like “If she suffered not scandal in the Lord’s Passion, Jesus did not die for her sins” (In Luc. Hom. 17) until “Immaculate Conception” could be developed.
Chrysostom did not have the term “Transubstantiation,” so he had to throw around terms like, “though the nature of bread remain in it” (Ad Cæsarium, book iii).
And Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, did not have the term “Roman Apostolic Primacy,” so he had to throw around terms like,
Yes, implicit within these explicit denials of what you currently believe to be the ancient religion of Rome, is an acknowledgment of the “truths” they were explicitly denying.
Jim, the reason you can’t find Roman Catholicism in the first three centuries of the Church is because Roman Catholicism did not exist in the first three centuries of the Church.
Thanks,
Tim
Jim,
“Yes, the evidence for early Romanism is “invisible, except to the eye of the Catholic.”
I love this! Once you turn your back on the Faith as you have done Tim, nothing makes sense. You cannot see a continuous line running through history. Instead it is all a jumble.
“When the Scriptures are the object of your faith, it becomes clear that Rome’s current practices are foreign to the Scriptures, and therefore, Roman Catholicism is a later development and is not the Church Jesus Christ founded.
Was the Church already in apostasy when she canonized those scriptures, Tim?
“It all comes down to the object of your faith. The object of your faith is the church, and the church cannot save you.”
The Church is part of the deposit of Faith. Of course I trust in her. To trust in her is to trust in Him. ( “he who hears you hear me. He who rejects you rejects me”. )
No one is saved who is not somehow in the Church. The Church can’t save me? No? Can you be saved outside of the Church?
Again, was the Bible canonized before or after the first 300 years? Was the Church corrupt at the time?
You tell me, Jim. When did the Church infallibly canonize them?
Tim
Councils of Hippo and Rome.
Jim,
Those were regional councils, not ecumenical councils. Only ecumenical councils are “infallible.” The first seven ecumenical councils were:
1 First Council of Nicaea (325)
2 First Council of Constantinople (381)
3 First Council of Ephesus (431)
4 Council of Chalcedon (451)
5 Second Council of Constantinople (553)
6 Third Council of Constantinople (680)
7 Second Council of Nicaea (787)
Did any of these councils declare a canon of Scripture? If not, which is the first ecumenical council to declare a canon of Scripture?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, they were regional councils ratified by the pope.
Jim,
Indeed they were regional councils ratified by the pope. But papal ratification of a regional council is not an organ of Roman infallibility. Infallibility is said to reside in the pope when he speaks ex cathedra or when he speaks to affirm the conciliar decrees of an ecumenical council:
From the Catholic Encylcopedia entry on infallibility:
Now, with that in mind, let us examine your claim that because they were regional councils and ratified by the pope, they are therefore infallible and binding. The Council of Toulouse banned the bible and forbade laymen to have copies of it. Protestants highlight this as evidence of Rome’s subordination of the Word of God the the Church, starving people of the Word of Life. To this charge, Roman Catholics cry foul: “You Protestants just don’t get conciliar infallibility!”:
Another Roman Catholic makes the same point:
But wait! The council of Toulouse was ratified by Pope Gregory IX. Therefore, Toulouse was a regional council ratified by the pope.
The problem for Roman Catholics is severe. On the one hand, the Councils of Rome and Carthage established the canon of Scripture for the whole church, and even though thy were just regional councils, they were ratified by the pope, and therefore binding. On the other hand Toulouse banned the bible, but even though the council of Toulouse was ratified by the pope, it doesn’t count because it was a regional council, and therefore not binding.
My point is that if Roman Catholics find an early council that says something with which they happen to agree, that council is considered to represent the entire Church, even though it was regional and non-binding. But if Roman Catholics are presented with a council that says something with which they disagree, that council is considered to be non-binding because the entire church was not represented—it was just a regional, local council, and therefore not binding.
Thus, the charge laid at the feet of Protestants—namely, that they are left to interpret the Scriptures on their own, aided only by the Holy Spirit (only!)—is the very problem Roman Catholics face with the conciliar and papal decrees of their church. They have to sort out which councils and popes said things they already agree with, and then decide they’ll abide by those councils and popes because those are the ones that spoke the truth. This reminds me of Jason Stellman’s conversion testimony at the Third Annual Holy Family Conference on March 8-9, 2013:
And Rome’s epistemology is superior because…. ?
Tim
Tim wrote:
“Jim, the reason you can’t find Roman Catholicism in the first three centuries of the Church is because Roman Catholicism did not exist in the first three centuries of the Church.”
Dear Jim and Bob, wow, this is pretty clear.
If the RCC did not exist in the first 3 centuries, what happened?
WALT–
You asked: “If the RCC did not exist in the first 3 centuries, what happened?”
The Church struggled with:
Jewish persecution and subsequent divorce from its Judaic roots.
Roman persecution.
Diverse beliefs after the Apostolic age.
The Nicolaitans and other heresies were rampant:
GNOSTICISM–
c.140 Valentinus begins teaching Gnostic views in Rome c.144 Marcion is excommunicated for Gnostic-like views c.175 Basilides espouses Gnostic teachings in Alexandria c.180 Irenaeus writes Against the Heresies, opposing Gnosticism
QUARTODECIMANISM–
c.155 Polycarp and others from Asia Minor advocate Nisan 14 as date of Easter
c.190 Pope Victor insists on Sunday observance and tries to stamp out Quartodecimanism (“14th-ism”), though Irenaeus advocates tolerance
c.325 Council of Nicea accepts Alexandrian method of determining Easter
c.400 Rome begins using Alexandrian method
MONTANISM–
c. 157 Montanus begins prophesying that the Heavenly Jerusalem will soon descend in Phrygia, in Asia Minor
c. 170s Montanism develops ecstatic and ascetic practices
c. 190 Montanism condemned by church councils in Asia Minor
c. 207 Tertullian converts to Montanism
c. 400 Montanism wanes but survives in pockets
MONARCHIANISM–
c. 190s Monarchianism (emphasizing God’s monarchia, “unity”—not the three persons) spreads
c. 200 Noetus condemned at Rome for Patripassianism (“the father suffers-ism”), the teaching that the Father suffered as the Son
c. 268 Council of Antioch deposes Paul of Samosata and condemns Sabellianism (i.e., modalism: Father, Son, and Spirit are temporary manifestations of the same being)
By the early 300s, most Monarchianists become Arians
“PURITANISM”–
c. 249–250 Decian persecution causes many Christians to “lapse,” i.e., deny the faith
c. 251 Novatian teaches that the lapsed should not be readmitted to the church; some Christians admit the lapsed on easy terms
c. 252 Cyprian argues for middle view: penance for the lapsed
c. 255–256 African bishops insist on rebaptism of heretics and schismatics; Rome disagrees
c. 311 Donatists refuse to accept new bishop of Carthage because he “handed over” the Scriptures under persecution; they consecrate a rival bishop
c. 314 Council of Arles condemns Donatism, which insists on unwavering loyalty of church members
c. 411 Donatism significantly weakened by government condemnation. Donatism survives in pockets in Africa until Islam conquers the region (late 600s)
ARIANISM–
c. 318 Arius’s views, that Jesus is not divine, gains popularity; Athanasius writes On the Incarnation, affirming the full deity and humanity of Jesus
c. 325 Council of Nicea, called by Emperor Constantine, condemns Arians and affirms the divinity of Christ
c. 328–361 Temporary triumph of Arianism; period of factions and confusion; Nicene bishops, like Athanasius, are deposed and banished
c. 337 New Eastern emperor, Constantius, openly embraces Arianism
c. 340 First conversions of Goths by Arian Ulfilas
c. 361 Valentian, an orthodox, becomes Western emperor, and orthodoxy begins to recover lost ground
c. 381 Theodosius, an orthodox, becomes sole emperor; Council of Constantinople affirms Nicene orthodoxy; Cappadocian Fathers put final touches on Trinitarian doctrine
c. 390s Arianism still alive among the Goths and other Germanic peoples. Arianism disappears in the 700s through gradual conversion to orthodoxy
MONOPHYSITISM–
c. 371 Apollinarius’s views (an early form of Monophysitism [“one-naturism”]: Jesus has one, divine nature) spread
c. 381 Council of Constantinople condemns Apollinarianism
c. 440s Eutyches begins teaching Christ has only one nature after the Incarnation—a divine nature
c. 449 Through intimidation and bribery, a council at Ephesus (the “Robber Council”) declares Eutyches orthodox
c. 451 Council of Chalcedon proclaims that Christ has two natures and condemns Monophysitism. In the 500s, after repeated attempts at reconciliation, Monophysites consolidate in Coptic, Syrian, and Armenian communions
PELAGIANISM–
c. 390 Pelagius moves to Rome and is disturbed by moral laxity
c. 410 Pelagius teaches salvation by good works; some of his followers deny original sin
c. 411 Augustine begins writing against Pelagius
c. 418 Council of Carthage affirms Augustine’s teaching
c. 431 Council of Ephesus condemns Pelagianism. With the condemnation at the Council of Orange (529), Pelagianism dies out
Without a strong central episcopate, who knows what would have happened to the Church?
Tim said: “Because Rome rejected the counsel of God and has sought its own revelation apart from God’s Word, God has cursed them and made their light darkness, so that when the seek for light they are confounded in their quest. While they “look for light,” God “make[s] it gross darkness.”
Look’s like in the first centuries without the RCC, the Church was really dark all over until a central authority arose to unite doctrine. I wonder who that authority was?
Bob said ” without a strong central episcopate who knows what would have happened to the church” The one who puts himself up as God in the church according to Paul in Thessalonians was antichrist ( the strong central episcopate). He came on time. And if we had a list of all his crimes thru the centuries his office is responsible for, it would tell us the church did just fine in the first 3 centuries. Remember my rule. Read Roman apology ( doctrine), believe the opposite, arrive at biblical truth. Actually the opposite of what you say is true Bob. The early church survived pristine, and the the Apostasy came on time. God sent the Reformers to rescue the Apostles and the early church from the hair splitting academics who changed the gospel. And they dismantled the ecclesiastical machinery in the church that was mostly human in content and origin. Luther and the boys unpiled all the manure piled on the cross. That came on time to.
Bob wrote:
“Look’s like in the first centuries without the RCC, the Church was really dark all over until a central authority arose to unite doctrine. I wonder who that authority was?”
Bob, you are barking up the wrong tree on this one. I’m totally supportive of national churches, and the establishment principle. Of course, there has been no better unity of the Christian Church outside the Apostolic church than what we see in the first and second (especially) reformations.
The Church of Scotland during the first (1560-1600) and second (1638-1649) was a glorious picture of what national churches will look like during the non-bodily (on earth), spiritual millennial reign of Christ for 1,000 years (figurative or literal?).
As a Presbyterian, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that we believe in authoritative church government, and that is why the National Covenant, and the Solemn League and Covenant were the greatest church covenants with God ever written outside those revealed in Scripture. We believe in church discipline, and the SUBORDINATE standards produced during the reformation churches were developed for unity and uniformity of the true church.
In your case of Rome, we are talking about the visible church in being, and the backslidden antichristian church. This site has a list of the creeds of the true church for your reference.
“Our single primary standard, from which all our doctrines and beliefs are derived, is the Word of God, i.e., the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments. Similarly, our faithful forefathers derived their doctrines also from Scripture and have, at various times in history, preserved those doctrines for us in writing. In keeping with the Scripture’s command, we “hold fast” to the doctrines contained in the documents listed below, insofar as they are agreeable to Scripture. These documents, because their authority is derived from Scripture, are known as our secondary standards or subordinate standards.”
http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/ss_order.html
Bob wrote,
Rome, of course, wants us all to concede the point that Rome is that strong central episcopate that arose and solved all the problems. We are not, under any circumstances, to peek behind the facade that Rome has constructed to see if the claim holds weight.
Gregory Nazianzen (380 A.D.) believed that Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, a “chief cornerstone,” had been raised up to protect the church, and was practically invested with infallibility in order to keep the church from error (i.e., “the Spirit takes possession of one who will breathe on His behalf”), and that he had received “the charge of the whole world.” (Oration 21.7).
Thus, by Bob’s reasoning, perhaps Alexandria was that strong central episcopate that arose to unite doctrine.
Of course, when Pope Damasus, supreme teacher of the church, commissioned by Christ to “feed my sheep” and “strengthen thy brethren,” did not understand the meaning of Hosanna in the scriptures, and did not understand the meanings of several passages in Genesis, Romans and Acts, he wrote to Jerome to ask for his help (Jerome, Letters 19 (383 A.D.) and 35 (384 A.D.)).
Thus, by Bob’s reasoning, perhaps Jerusalem, where “pope Jerome” lived at the time, was that strong central episcopate that arose to unite doctrine.
Of course, when Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, found that those in Rome were troubling the church, he wrote to Cyprian of Carthage thanking him “that you have settled this matter” of those in Rome who “do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 74, chapters 6 and 17, 256 A.D.).
Thus, by Bob’s reasoning, perhaps Carthage was that strong central episcopate that arose to unite doctrine.
Of course, in 394 A.D., at a synod in Constantinople, bishop Theophilus of Alexandria and bishop Flavian of Antioch are found attending a council convened by Nectarius of Constantinople to resolve a dispute between two bishops of the Diocese of Oriens—a prerogative that Leo claimed in 444 A.D. belonged to Rome alone, according to “old-established tradition” (Leo, Letter VI, chapter V, To Anastasius).
Thus, by Bob’s reasoning, perhaps Constantinople was that strong central episcopate that arose to unite the church.
Oh, yes, Jerome paid his respects to Damasus, his own personal papal admirer, (i.e., “My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!” (Jerome, To Damasus, Letter 15, 373 A.D.). But when Jerome wasn’t engaged in mutual admiration with Damasus, he was denying that Peter alone held the keys, and played down the status of Peter being “the Rock” because, after all, the keys of the kingdom were given to all the apostles, not just Peter who after all was just an Apostle, whereas John was an Apostle, Prophet and Evangelist and was only overlooked for the role of Pope because of his youth (Against Jovinianus, Book I.26).
When Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodorus, and Phileas wrote to Meletius to rebuke him for ordaining bishops outside of his domain, they appealed not to Roman authority, but to “the law of our fathers and forefathers” which held that “every one shall have enough to do in managing his own parish” that there is simply no call for any bishop at all to reach beyond his own parish to meddle in the affairs of others:
This, they said had been violated, causing no small disrespect to “the honour of our great bishop and father, Peter, on whom we all depend in the hope which we have in the Lord Jesus Christ,” and they weren’t talking about Peter of Rome, but the then-reigning bishop of Alexandria.
I grant to Rome only that it is an interloper and claimed to be that strong central episcopate that “unified the church,” but that is just Rome’s interpretation of history. Another interpretation, consistent with the Scriptures, is that Roman Catholicism arose on time, and in place, to fulfill that of which the apostles and prophets warned, namely an Antichrist that would arise to establish a strong central episcopate.
Tim
Jim, said ” because cleansed people need to offercsacrifice to stay cleansed” Jim, can I suggest a couple books. Redemption, accomplished and applied by Murray, And Pierced for our Transgressions. We dont continuue to expiate our sins. He reconciled us and justified us past tense, and now He applies that perfect sacrifice on our behalf. He int up there saying hey dad Jim just finished the mass, cut him some more grace or justice. Jim, we stand in his grace and we are justified . Thats why we have joy and peace and assurance.
Kelvin,
If we sin ( in the future ) we have an Advocate. Do you agree?
Jesus’ Advocacy is not being applied before you sin is it?
You did say that when you “got saved’ all your future sins were forgiven, even prior to committing and repenting of them, did you not?
Explain that please.
Although Jesus was the High Priest even in His mother’s Immaculate womb, His priesthood was not perfected until after he suffered, agreed? IOW, His mediation did not really kick off until He entered into the Heavenly Sanctuary.
Jesus died for our sins but was raised for our justification. We are being justified now that the High priest is in heaven.
Either nobody was saved on Calvary or everybody was if, as you guys seem to think, Calvary applies itself.
Jim, and I think Walt points this out to you. There are NO more sacrifices for sin. Hebrews 10:18. As I said before crafty Bryan Cross tried to tell me this meant animal sacrifices. I said nice try. It say no more sacrifices. Let me say this in the most loving way I can, those who choose each week to participate in the Mass of the Roman church are idolators, and accusers of the Lord that His sacrifice was insufficient for their sin. They undermine His one time perfect work which Hebrews 10:14 said PERFECTED those who are being sanctified. Now Jim, if Christ perfected me thru one sacrifice, how big of a denial of faith, and Christ’s perfect work to say that it needs to be done over and over and over again for your sins. He said He accomplished, past tense, all that the Father gave Him to do. He now sits in heaven and applies that sacrifice on our behalf. But we are already justified in the already/not yet. There are no more installments. Remember when were growing up and you went into that store and bought that great thing that you wanted, and you put it on the law away plan. Your mother would go in every few weeks and pay some more of it off until it was payed in full. That’s the Roman view of the mass and justification. But the bible says that when we believe, the righteousness we receive from christ at that moment is the same righteousness that passes us thru judgment, the perfect imputed righteousness of Christ. And thats why we have present peace with God. ” Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God. We aren’t initially justified by faith and then merit our continuance by our works through sacraments to a final test. Thats all I will say. God bless James.
Jim wrote:
“Look at the principle in the O.T. Just men, justified by Faith according to Hebrews, offered sacrifice.
Abel, Job, Noah,Abraham, all offered sacrifice before Moses and the Law.”
Yes, they were justified by faith. I’m really glad you have made this admission, rather than saying they were justified by faith, PLUS works, or PLUS sacrifice.
They did sacrifice because they were waiting for Jesus Christ to fulfill this FINAL sacrifice by His blood being shed on the cross, and once this event took place “it is finished”.
No more sacrifices are necessary Jim. Really, think about it.
Tim,
So nobody believed in the Real Presence, adored the Blessed Sacrament or believed the Mass to be a sacrifice until when?
Give me the exact date please.
I can’t not find you response to my question about the Christians on the Malabar coast.
I actually hadn’t noticed it. I’ll take a look.
Tim
Tim,
Yeah, I asked you twice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YjVP0X9G-c
And did you see my list of 28 innovations and their dates?
Jim,
Thanks for the video. When I first read Revelation back in 1984, I wondered how the whole world could be fooled into worshiping the Image of the Beast. Surely, with John’s clear warnings against idolatry (1 John 5:21) and his prophetic revelation about worldwide idol worship commended by the Beast and his False Prophet, nobody could ever be fooled into worshiping an image that comes to life and has the power to speak. Surely!
I remember talking with my then-girlfriend about it, and I uttered what would be one of the most profoundly significant statements I have ever made in my life: “Maybe I’m following antichrist right now and don’t even know it.” It turns out, I was.
Now when I watch the video you sent, I can see how the whole world can be fooled into worshiping an image that comes to life and has the power of speech—the Eucharist! They think they are adoring Christ, and they think He Himself told them to do it. But He did not. They think the bread is Christ’s literal flesh and blood, and that the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers believed it, too. But they did not.
God is not worshiped in or through images. We are not to bow before bread to worship it. And bread is all it is.
Thanks,
Tim
Jim, I alleged that “nobody adored the Blessed Sacrament” until the 11th century.
Please provide evidence of Eucharistic Adoration prior to that. Justin Martyr’s reference to an offering of thanks and praise upon reflection on the bread and wine is hardly evidence of offering “the bread” or of Transubstantiation, or the Mass Sacrifice and or Eucharistic Adoration.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
How, in your wildest dreams, is a bread and wine meal a thanksgiving offering?
How could Justin or Malachi have conceived of a crackers and grape juice meal be an offering of any kind?
Jim, regarding your question, “How, in your wildest dreams, is a bread and wine meal a thanksgiving offering?”, please see Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho,
He continues and says that “For such [prayers and giving of thanks] alone [that is, not prayers, thanks, and the sufferings of Christ] Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind [not brought to the altar], whose name the high priests of your nation and your teachers have caused to be profaned and blasphemed over all the earth.”
That simply does not speak of a Mass Sacrifice in which Christ’s passion is re-presented to the Father. It speaks of a memorial meal in which the bread and wine call to mind the sufferings of Christ for which we rightly give God thanks and praise as a sacrifice, per Hebrews 13:15,
Now Jim, if you have evidence of the Mass sacrifice of Christ’s Passion being represented to the Father in the first three centuries, please provide it. If you have another interpretation of Luke 2:35 in which the sword that pierces Mary’s heart is not a sword of unbelief representing Mary’s sinfulness in being scandalized, please provide it. If you have evidence of Eucharistic Adoration in the first 1000 years, please provide it. If you have evidence of an infallible canon prior to Trent, please provide it.
I get that it is invisible to the rest of us, and there was not a sufficient vocabulary for them back then to explain Roman Catholicism. Perhaps the vocabulary and the evidence did not exist in the first three centuries because the Religion itself did not yet exist.
Thank you,
Tim
Tim,
“Chrysostom did not have the term “Transubstantiation,” so he had to throw around terms like, “though the nature of bread remain in it” (Ad Cæsarium, book iii).”
Actually Tim, this is exactly what I am talking about. Take for example Zwingli’s misapplying Tertullian’s ” figure” terminology.
A perfect example is found in the homousian/ homooisan stuff of the early centuries. What was once an heretical formula becomes an orthodox one once terms are clarified.
Tim.
How could the prayers of totally depraved sinner be be a “clean oblation”?
Tim,
Let me re-submit this little jewel. You like to assert that the Eucharist as we know did not exist before the 1100s?
Okay. Two can play at that game.
1. 90, Sunday worship taught by Didache.
2. 180, God first declared a “Trinity” of three persons by Theophilus.
3. 381,Prayer to the Holy Spirit authorized by Council of Constantinople.
4. 397, Book of Revelation, until now considered dubious, declared to be “scripture”.
5. 400, Augustine invents original sin.
6. Salvation apart from Jesus declared to be heretical by Pope Zosimus.
7. 431, Ephesus Council declares Mary’s human son to be God himself.
8. 525 Calendar for Easter Sunday instituted.
9. 950 Invention of Bible in English.
10. 1215, Declaration that God “created the world out of nothing.”
11. 1455, Scheme for printing Bible invented by Gutenberg.
12. 1760, Singing of “Amazing Grace” instituted by John Newman.
13. 1776, Protestant founders of America downgrade Trinity to “Nature’s God”.
14. 1825, Altar calls instituted by Charles Finney.
15. U.S. Government enforces Thanksgiving to God as official state holiday.
16. 1864, Mammon worship instituted by U.S. Government by stamping ” In God We Trust” on currency.
17. 1900, Light bulbs used in worship services.
18. 1929, Wednesday night Bible studies invented.
19. 1951, Preachers begin to dress in polyester suits.
20. 1959, Televangelism invented by Pat Robertson.
21. 1965, ” Four Spiritual laws” promulgated by Bill Bright.
22. 1969, Unscriptural practice of ” inviting Jesus into your heart” popularized.
23. 1970, Overhead projectors first used in worship services.
24. 1978, Abortion declared to be a grave sin by Evangelicals.
25. 1991, Promise Keepers founded based on neo- pagan men’s groups.
26. 1998, Sale and commercialization of WWJD bracelets.
27. 2001, “Faith Based” government founded by George Bush.
Jim, said ” to trust in her is to trust in Him” Jim the church isn’t Jesus Christ. Paul uses church as a metaphor for the body of Christ. As Eric W has said in the past when he challenged Catholics, believe in Christ as head, not the Pope or the Roman church. Why? Because Jim, when one studies scripture, it is clear that it is contrary to Christ’s gospel. K
Jim, yes I agree we have an advocate with the Father. He applies His perfect sacrifice on our behalf. We sin, we confess, and He applies his sacrifice on our behalf. Here is the distinction. We aren’t earning our continuance in that grace. We are covered by that sacrifice by faith alone in Christ alone. ” If we confess our sins He is faithful to forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have no sin, we make God out to be a liar. We have sin in us Jim. Where we come short the righteousness of Christ always covers our sin. He is just and justifier of those who have faith in Jesus. Jim, the difference between ” the righteous shall live by faith ” and ” as a reward to their merits and good works” I believe Paul is clear, is the difference between heaven and hell. There is a difference between standing in His grace by faith, and meriting continuance. And Roman catholicism isn’t the former. K
Tim, if I can suggest an Article for your readers just written by Eric Davis ” How Christians will know they can join hand with Rome” It is a must read for all, especially Roman Catholics. It has been suggested on many Reformed blogs. Thanks K
Sure, Kevin,
Here it is: http://thecripplegate.com/how-christians-will-know-they-can-join-hands-with-rome/
Because of the constraints of Rome’s infallibility and the contrary demands of the pure gospel, the real answer is that we can never, ever, join hands with Rome.
In the words of Charles Haddon Spurgeon,
We’ll revisit this issue in the year 12,014 to see how Rome is coming along.
Tim
Tim, you are dead right. Rome will never change. It can’t change. It is antichrist. I think Davis poses that article title as a reminder of remembering the Reformation and the major schism between the true church and Roman Catholicism. K
Kevin,
Get out of the way. I am trying to educate Tim and you keep butting in.
Tim,
I have been googling around but cannot find a statement made by Gregory of Nyssa. I know he said it because it was used by a Jesuit named Lessius in explaining one way the Mass is a sacrifice. He said that the priest’s words are a mystic sword that would separate Christ’s Body and Blood were He not glorified.
Also, long before Transubstantiation was used in the West, the Greeks used the word “metabolazein” ( metabolize ) to say the bread is transformed at the priest’s words.
Augustine and Ambrose translated the Bible’s, ‘he was made sin for us” to mean Christ was made a sin offering. A sin offering was a sacrifice Tim.
Also, let us not forget Ambrose and Augustine offered Mass for the dead. They did not offer a bread and wine/cracker and grape juice memorial meal. How would that have benefitted the dead?
Again, all the Eastern schismatic Churches offered the sacrifice of the Mass although cut off from Rome by the Moslems. Explain it please.
Even if they had strange views on the two natures of Christ as did the Nestorian and Monophysites, they still had the Eucharist.
Tim, if they believed in a Real Presence, they believed in sacrifice.
You might find it helpful to read martin Chemnitz on the Lord’s Supper.
As for your Marian errors, the Moslems once again are my witnesses. They may have gotten their views from the 1st or 2nd century Gospel of James but none the less, they reveal an interest in Mary that predates the year 1000,
Jim, I’ll get to these citations over time, including that of Gregory of Nyssa, but there were a few other quotes I wanted to provide by way of example. One of the “early evidences” for Transubstantiation is this one from Ephraim:
And this one from Cyprian of Carthage:
Now if these are taken as early evidence of Transubstantiation, they must be taken as they are. Thus, Epharaim has the bread Transubstantiated into body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ and into the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Holy Spirit. And thus, in some mysterious way, the Holy Spirit is incarnated under the appearance of bread, for the bread is full of “Himself and the Spirit,” and then is sacrificed to God as a memorial of an event in which He was neither incarnated nor sacrificed.
Likewise, in the cup, the liquid is transubstantiated into Christ and into us, for “water [signifying us] alone cannot be offered, even as wine [signifying Jesus’ blood] alone cannot be offered.” As Cyprian explains, “the divine Scripture in the Apocalypse declares that the waters signify the people, saying, ‘The waters which you saw, upon which the whore sits, are peoples and multitudes, and nations of the Gentiles, and tongues,’ [Revelation 17:15] which we evidently see to be contained also in the sacrament of the cup.”
So based on these two Fathers alone, the ancient dogma of the Christian church is that the Bread is transubstantiated into Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and the Blood is transubstantiated into Jesus’ and everyone else.
Is there anything that the bread and wine aren’t transubstantiated into?
I find it much more likely that the early Church took great delight in extrapolating the symbology of the elements of the Lord’s supper, but never would have presumed to worship them. And for good reason—symbols are not to be worshiped.
Thanks,
Tim
Jim, I do enjoy you. lol Hope you are well. But I think your fatherly attempt to pull Tim back to Roman Catholicism is spinning your wheels. He has life in God’s son thru faith alone in Christ alone. This site is such a blessing, and my guess down deep in your heart you think so to Jim. God bless. Have a great day.
Kevin,
Please stay on the other thread. Bob is instructing you over there.
I am trying to communicate with Tim on this blog.
Tim is going to explain how the Romish Church introduced adoration and the Real Presence in the 11th century to the ancient Churches of the East that had had no contact with the West for centuries due to the Islamic control of Asia all the way to India.
Tim, my wife works with several Armenian Christians. Although the Turks were in control of the region between their country and the Byzantine Empire, the celebrate the sacrifice of the Mass.
So do all the Byzantine Churches that were disputing with Rome by the way.
The Copts of Ethiopia were cut off from the rest of Christendom since the 6oos when the Moslems seized North Africa. Not until the Portuguese sailed around the cape of Africa in about 1500 did they have any contact with Rome. Even then, they did not come into communion with Rome. And yet they celebrate Mass and believe in the Real presence.
The Nestorians living high in the mountains of China also celebrate the Sacraments. They were heretics with no contact with Rome either.
Tim, ( not Kevin ) please explain.
Tim,
I am totally cornfused. Now you are saying everything was hunky dory until the 11th century.
I could have sworn you had said earlier that everything went belly up around Nicea or even before. Didn’t you say the Fathers after the 3rd century or so we under the Papal system?
Are you sure you aren’t making this up as we go along?
Jim,
As I have repeated several times on this blog, Rome went apostate in the latter half of the 4th century, consistent with Daniel 7. But the Image of the Beast was not erected for worship until the 11th, consistent with Revelation 13, as I highlighted in When “Mary” Got Busy.
Rome can’t trace its religion any further back than the 4th Century, and she can’t even trace the centerpiece of her religion, Eucharistic Adoration, back any farther than the 11th. That is why you consistently find Roman apologists citing late 4th century Patristics in support of the antiquity of Roman Catholicism, but then when they get to Eucharistic Adoration, the best they can do is the late 11th century. For example:
So for future reference: Apostasy: late 4th Century; Worship of the Image of the Beast: late 11th century.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
So, were the post Nicene fathers believers in the Real Presence/Sacrifice or not?
You have rejected my appeals to certain Fathers as being 4th century apostates. Now you are saying belief in the Presence did not start before the 11th century.
Augustine believed in sacrifice for instance. Was he part of the evil system? Or do you say he didn’t believe in it?
It seems like your theory is borrowed from others. The only thing peculiar to you is your inserting Fatima and Marian apparitions into the scheme. Am I correct?
Your use of Revelation is and is not unique.
Who is your theory directed at? Your mom? Have you submitted it to any Protestant “experts” ( other than Dr. Balonius Fallonius of course )?
Finally, if you really do have this all charted out in your mind, could you cut to the chase and give us the final chapter of you theory today? I have a sneaky feeling you are inserting stuff into the scheme as we go along ( Fr. Most for instance ).
Do you have any predictions? Could you share them with us now as your blog has gotten to be one confusing mess.
Tim, if i may suggest a sermon i heard today by John MacArthur ” “Abiding in Christ” part 1 on gty.org. Why false religion and the world hate the sovereignty of God. Thx K
Augustine ” Let them who eat, eat on, and them that drink, drink, let them that hunger and thirst, eat life, drink lfe. That eating, is to be refreshed, but you are such wise refreshed, as that that whereby you are refreshed,does not fail.That drinking, what , what is it but to live? Eat life, drink life, you will have life, and the life is entire. But then this shall be, that isthe body and blood of Christ shall be each man’s life, if what is taken in the sacrament visibly is in the truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying ” It is the Spirit that gives life, but the flesh profits nothing. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.” Transubstantiation, sacrifice, element worship. Hardly.
Augustine Faustus 6:5 ” While we consider it no longer a duty to offer sacrifices, we recognize sacrifices as part of the mysteries of Revelation, by which the things prophesized were foreshadowed. For they were our examples, and in many and various ways all pointed to the sacrifice which we now commemorate. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and has been offered in due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship. Wile it retains its SYMBOLIC authority.” A little perspective is always good.
Tim,
Okay, all is clear. The Apostste Church did not introduce bread worship for 600 years. Why?
Next, you citation of Cyprian proves my case. Of course the Holy Spirit always comes with the Eucharist.As for the water bit, water is commingled with the wine in Mass.
Try again, Tim.
Now, as for your theory that nobody believed in the Real Presence until 1000 sparking a bunch of Eucharistic miracles, what about the famous Radbertus vs Ratramnus case in the 800s?
The most spectacular Eucharistic miracle, that of Lanciano, too place in the 700s.
Jim, you wrote,
That’s a good question. The beasts of Daniel 7 occur sequentially and are separated by hundreds of years. The description of the First Beast in Revelation 13 occupies John for ten verses with no mention of the image of the Beast. Then, starting in verse 11, John says, “And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth…”. As with Daniel’s visions, the Beasts are separated by hundreds of years. Only after the Second Beast of Revelation 13 (the False Prophet) is the Image of the Beast mentioned. You continued,
As does Jesus. But that is not what Ephraim said. He said the Eucharist is filled both with Christ and with the Holy Spirit: “and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit.” If this is proof of an early belief in Transubstantiation, then it is early belief that Jesus turned the bread into both the 2nd and 3rd Persons of the Trinity. Is this the historical view of the Roman Catholic Church? … that Jesus transubstantiated the bread into both Himself and the Holy Spirit and then offered both the Holy Spirit and Himself to the Father as a sacrifice? If not, why not? Why would Rome diverge so far from the apostolic teachings of the early church? You continued,
Of course it is. But the water signifies us, according to Cyprian. We are in the cup with Jesus, according to Cyprian. Were we with Him in the cup the night before He died? In what way are we to understand His words, “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20), if we are in the cup with Him. Did He offer both us and Himself to the Father when He died on the Cross? When the priest utters the words of consecration, does he transubstantiate all of us into Jesus, or just the wine part? At the beginning of the consecration, there is just water and wine. At end of the consecration, is the wine transubstantiated into Jesus, but the water remains as a signification of us? Is there the substance of blood under the accident of wine, but the substance of water under the accident of water? Or is all the water (us) and wine (Jesus) transubstantiated into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ?
I know it took a long time for Rome to sort this out, but these citations are typically taken as incipient representations of Transubstantiation. In fact, they are early evidence of people wrestling with signification in the Lord’s supper. You continued,
Here is pretty good article on it for those interested: The Meal that Divides. Some interesting points:
…at which point the Eucharistic adoration revolution swept through the church.
Why do you suppose that Radbertus’ doctrine was so controversial if the church had always believed that “the nature of the bread and wine … are completely done away with, although the appearance of bread and wine remains”? Why did people initially reject it? It sounds like Radbertus was simply restating what you claim the church had always taught since the days of the apostles, and yet when Radbertus proposed it, it was controversial.
So in sum, we have a eucharistic miracle in Lanciano in the 700s (which I pointed out to Walt in back in April, by the way), and the Radbertus gets a wild hare of an idea in the 800s about the bread and wine being completely done away with at the words of consecration, and people still aren’t worshiping the eucharist. Then in the late 1,000s, the church suddenly realizes that it should have been worshiping the bread all along, and so Eucharistic adoration takes Europe by storm, when Francis introduces “eucharistic adoration” to Italy:
Now why, exactly, would Francis have to “introduce” eucharistic adoration to the seat of Christ’s church, if the “Apostolic Roman Catholic Church” had been practicing it all along?
Or perhaps, with a well-placed miracle and an imaginative monk, the apparitions of Mary were “saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.” (Revelation 13:14), a command that Rome was only too happy to obey.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
I don’t understand why you are making something out of the water mingled with the wine when the priest says how Christ took upon Himself our humanity so we could take on His divinity.
Tim, you wrote a long post. It is so simple and short. If the Church believed in the Real Presence, it is only logical to adore that Presence.
When does the Presence leave the Species that remain after the Mass and are put away in the ‘Pastaphorium”.
You deny that the “Bread” was venerated or worshiped. Then why not just throw it to the chickens after the Supper as I have heard some Lutheran groups do? Why treasure it?
Eucharistic Adoration is logical IF Christ’s words are true.
As for Radbertus, his theory may have gone too far in one direction and Ratramnus went way over board in the other direction. Again, heresies serve the purpose of clarifying and fine tuning doctrine. Consider the Triniitarian disputes for instance. By your reckoning, Nicaea invented the Trinity out of thin air.
I am glad you admit Lanciano took place well before your 11th century date. It undoes your whole theory.
We have a miracle here in Santarem too. Please remember what had happened right before the miracles took place. In every instance, the Host had been desecrated. The Church just didn’t decide for no reason to promulgate a doctrine or promote a miracle out of boredom.
Same applies to your theory on Marian apparitions. Please take the time to study just why, where, what and when the Mother of God came to warn her children of some imminent disaster or heresy.
Now, what a coincidence. I am going over to church for benediction right now.
Tim,
Tell us about the Shroud of Turin.
Tim,
I could kick myself. It was Gregory of Nyssa I have been seaching for> I was Gregory of Nanzianus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGXjOVQKEdw
I knew it was a Gregory.
You know, yesterday a couple of Witness approached me in a park. As one of them was elderly, I knew he was a former Catholic. I am always fascinated by apostasy from Catholicism to the Wtnesses.
Tim, you deal in arguments from silence, partial quotes, innuendos and bold allegations.
Ellen G. White says the Beast obscured Saturday worship. The Witnesses say Rome erased the name of God from the Bible and invented the Trinity. The Mormons, well,…
So far. only Kevin is lapping up your fabulous yarn. It won’t go any further than one deranged idiot lap dog.
Tim,
You are comical.
So what if placing the Host in a monstrance for adoration did not begin until the 11th century?
If belief in the Real Presence predates the 11th century, isn’t it just a logical step to adore the Presence after Mass? I mean, the Host doesn’t transubstantiate in reverse after Mass does it? It doesn’t become bread again, does it?
You admit that Berengarius denied the Eucharistic Presence. He was the innovator. I have told you before that whenever something is denied, the Church steps in to reinforce the true doctrine.
Listen to the video I linked you to above.
Jim, did you read the Augustine quote? ” if what is taken in the sacrament visibly is eaten spiritually. Jim, anyone can understand the difference between this and adoring and worshiping the bread. God bless
Kevin,
I would normally give you some quotes on what Augustine actually believed but since you are a write off I will move on to someone else. You haven’t got a brain and just vomit out slurs. I told you and the other pukes on GB I won’t muck with people who blaspheme the Blessed Sacrament. You are a twirp.
JIM–
Are Catholics commanded to practice Eucharistic Adoration, or is it voluntary? Is it required of Catholics to pray through the saints or can they pray directly to the Father or Jesus if they so choose?
Bob,
Eucharistic Adoration is not offered in all parishes due to various reasons. Two people are required to be present whenever the Sacrament is exposed. Therefore people sign up for a particular hour although everyone is invited to come for a visit and stay as long as the like. In some parishes nobody signs up due to work or other schedules.
In other parishes, where there is a high crime rate, the priest may not want to have the church doors open at night or when a couple of old ladies are alone in the building.
My own parish had adoration today and there were about a dozen people present every hour.
Nobody is required to attend although all Catholics must believe what the Church teaches on the Eucharist.
People are require to receive the Eucharist only once a year.
Of course Catholics pray directly to God. The Mass is directed to God only. Praying to the saints is praying to God as it is His idea. It is not an either or thing.
Remember Job’s friends were told by God to go away and have Job make intercession for them,
Augustine Faustus 20:18, 20 ” The Hebrews, again, in their animal sacrifice, which they offered to God in many varied forms, suitably to the significance of the institution, typified the sacrifice offered by Christ. This sacrifice is also commemorated by Christians, in the sacred offering and participation of the body and blood of Christ. Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types WERE fulfilled by the TRUE sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is COMMEMORATED in the sacrament. ” Tim I hope Catholics will look to one who they call their father , Augustine, and stop worshiping the elements and remember the one great sacrifice for our sins that PUT SIN AWAY. Hebrews 9. Hallelujah Amen! and God bless everyone.
Bob, lets put it this way, it is clear that their is one mediator between man and God. So praying to saints, is a violation of worship. Catholics must are required to believe the church’s teaching in order to be saved. So they must believe in the real sacrifice of the Mass and that the bread is substantially the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. So IOW they are in penalty of losing salvation because this is the official teaching of Trent. Trent anathematized anyone who says the Mass isn’t a true and real sacrifice efficacious for sins.
Bob – neither is commanded. You can pray directly to the Father & Jesus.
CK, thanks for your comment. I would contend that both are commanded.
When Paul VI promulgated Mysterium Fidei about Eucharistic Adoration, he (mis)quoted Augustine to say “…not only do we not sin in thus adoring it [the Eucharist], but we would be sinning if we did not do so.” (Mysterium Fidei, 55). Eucharistic Adoration is required in Roman Catholicism, for not to adore it is a sin.
As regards Mary’s mediation, that, too, is mandatory, as the teaching of many Popes has established:
Leo XIII, Encyclical, Superiore anno, August 30, 1884. ASS 17, 1884. 49.
Leo XIII, Encyclical, Octobri mense adventante, Sept 22, 1891, ASS 24, 1891, 196.
Leo XIII, Encyclical, Iucunda semper, Sept 8, 1984. ASS 27, 1894. 179.
There are 17 other similar teachings from popes at the above link, and William Most includes this exhortation: “St. Pius X said she was the “dispensatrix of all the gifts, and is the “neck” connecting the Head of the Mystical Body to the Members. But all power flows through the neck.”
If nothing is imparted to us except through Mary, and every grace is communicated “from the Virgin to us,” and she is the Mediatrix of these graces and all gifts, and all power flows through the neck, then there is nothing you can possibly get from God that does not of necessity come through her. There is no protestant exemption clause. Going straight to Jesus or the Father does not get you around the fact that “He Himself willed” that everything come through Mary. As Mother Teresa taught, “It is only through the Heart of Mary that we come to the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus.”
As Vatican II required, you are not to be so over the top that you exaggerate her role, but neither are you to understate it:
It seems to me that if the popes have said that everything has to come through Mary, then if someone were to deny that it has to come through Mary, that person is leading the separated brethren into error—if everything really has to come through Mary.
Just my thoughts. Eucharistic Adoration and praying through Mary look awfully mandatory to me.
Tim
Tim,
Doctrine and devotion are not quite the same. Latria and dulia are not merely degrees of emotional fervor. The difference resides in the intellect, not the emotions.
Someone who had an alcoholic father may believe God is good but it doesn’t resonate in his feelings. Maybe he had a kind mother. He may emotionally, ( but not intellectually )feel God’s love by going through Mary more than approaching God directly.
There are saints I get a warm fuzzy thinking about and there are saints I don’t cozy up to at all.
There are devotions I like and some I don’t practice at all.
Someone asked me not long ago if I like the new Pope. It seemed like a strange question as I don’t think I have ever “liked” any Pope. The Pope is the Pope. End of story.
As for devotion to Mary, people may have a visceral devotion or a cerebral acquiescence to defined doctrine only.
However, there has never been a canonized saint who wasn’t devoted to her.
Tim – I believe thoughts are incorrect. You are required to assent to those particular doctrines but you are not required to attend Eucharistic Adoration or have a devotion to Mary. Now I don’t know know why one who assents to those doctrines wouldn’t want to, which puts your quotes in perspective.
I understand what you are saying, CK, but Paul VI’s (mis)quote from Augustine was that “no one eats of this flesh without having first adored it . . . and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would be sinning if we did not do so.” The context of the quote is not, “no one eats of this flesh without having first attended the exposition of the blessed sacrament,” or “no one eats of this flesh without having first signed up for perpetual adoration.” The context was that you don’t eat the Eucharist without first adoring it, and to not adore it before eating is a sin. So sayeth Paul VI, for that adoration takes place during Mass:
Now I hold that Paul VI took Augustine wildly out of context here, but when he did so, he said that it is a sin not to adore the Eucharist during Mass. He did not say it is optional to adore the Eucharist during Mass, but it is a sin not to adore it outside of Mass. He said it is a sin not to adore the Eucharist during Mass.
So yes, Adoration of the Eucharist during Mass is mandatory, and failing to adore the Eucharist during Mass is a sin (in Rome).
Christians, however, do not adore the sacrament.
Tim
Then the don’t adore Christ.
Jim, want you to know that I (almost) fully endorse your comment:
…but with one modest change:
“They don’t adore the same Christ.”
This is quite true. Christians and Catholics adore different Christs, and therefore adore different Gods altogether. I don’t deny this, nor do I consider your words uncharitable. I think they get right to the heart of our differences. The god you worship is but an image, the Image of the Beast. You think it is Christ but it is a different christ than the One in the Scriptures. It is but a piece of bread.
Now I consider the two statements, “Then they don’t adore Christ” and “The christ you worship is but a piece of bread” to be, at the core, earnest statements of two men trying to convince each other of what they believe to be true. They are not uncharitable nor are they unkind.
I appreciate your candor, and I welcome it here.
Tim
Tim.
You and kelvin keep making the same mistake. Kelvin accuses Catholics of worshiping
the elements”. You do too although you haven’t used those terms.
What are the elements? Show me a document that says we Catholics worship “elements”.
You two can keep telling us what we worship until the cows come home but it doesn’t make it so.
Again Tim, for the fiftieth time, you have to either (1)prove you know a Catholic’s intention when he prays or (2) prove the elements of bread and wine are not transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ.
Keep asserting your theory about Eucharistic Adoration as an 11th century innovation. Say it over and over until those same cows come home.
But do not (1) try to tell me what is going on in my head when I am praying or (2) try to disprove Jesus’ words about the Eucharist being His Body and Blood.
Bozo can belch out “death wafer” and you can bray ” bread worship” til kingdom come. Make your assertions as much as you want.
Just don’t try to actually prove your position because you cannot.
The Bible, Tim, the BIBLE says the Eucharist IS Christ on our altars and in our tabernacles and monstrances.
We take the Bible seriously and you guys don’t. We worship the Christ of the Bible and you worship a mental construct of your own.
You are so right. We just might not worship the same God. Our God is biblical. Yours comes from Zwingli.
I think you and Kelvin go beyond Calvin on this. I know you go beyond Luther.
Timothy–
” CK, thanks for your comment. I would contend that both are commanded…Just my thoughts. Eucharistic Adoration and praying through Mary look awfully mandatory to me.”
See, Tim, that’s what I have noticed about your writing. When you pull those quotes out of context and use them alone to support your view, you try to make them say what they really don’t. When I read the documents you cite, I come away with a different impression than you. Also, the Catholics don’t teach that these things are mandatory or required like they do abstaining from meat on Fridays of lent and attending Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation.
Tim – I agree with you. Bob can clarify this but I thought he was asking specifically about adoration outside of mass. This you are not required to do. though it’s highly recommendEd. Again I can’t imagine how one can assent to the Church’s doctrine on the Eucharist and not adore the Host before consuming it.
Ok, my mistake. I should have said Perpetual Adoration.
Bob – that’s what I thiught you meant.
Tim – the more I think about it, I believe you can continue to consume the Host even if you are lacking the faith at that particular moment (and thus not adoring) just as long as you are not denying the doctrine outright. Meaning you don’t believe at the moment but defer to the Church’s teaching. Hope this makes sense.
Bob said – See, Tim, that’s what I have noticed about your writing. When you pull those quotes out of context and use them alone to support your view, you try to make them say what they really don’t
Me – I’m glad other people have noticed this. Tim reminds me of those people that look through race color glasses so that all they see is racism except he has anti-Catholic glasses.
CK,
I have no idea what you are talking about. Bob said I was taking things out of context, but then you agreed with what I said, and then Bob said that he should have said “perpetual adoration.” What I answered about what is sin and is not a sin was straight from Mysterium Fidei, and you agreed that adoration of the eucharist is mandatory, for failing to do so is sin.
Now, if Bob asks whether Eucharistic Adoration is mandatory, and I prove from Mysterium Fidei that it is—receiving the Eucharist is mandatory, and adoring it before you receive it is mandatory—in what way have I “pull[ed] those quotes out of context”? Mysterium Fidei says what it says.
As for the quotes on Mary’s role as Mediatress, I simply cut and pasted from EWTN’s site. I didn’t add or subtract from anything they said there, and if the Pope prays that everyone approach God through Mary, and says that all graces come through her, and there is not grace that does not come through her, then approaching God through Mary is mandatory, and you don’t just become Catholic and decide you’re not a Eucharistic-Adoring Catholic and you’re not a Mary-Mediatress Catholic. You’re either Catholic or you’re not. Catholics adore the Eucharist (for not to do so is a sin), and Catholics pray to Mary (there is nothing that you get from God that doesn’t come through her).
Now in what way have I taken things out of context?
John XXIII, Epistle to Cardinal Agaganian, Legate to Marian Congress in Saigon, Jan 31, 1959, AAS 51, 1959, 88.
Don’t look at me, CK. He’s your pope.
Tim
CK BOB, it doesn’t matter whether the Pope says its sin not to adore, or one has a choice, to worship the elements is idolatry. Catholics worship the elements. They honor the bread as Christ, they genuflect to it, they adore it. Making it sound optional doesn’t divert from the complete growth of Bread worship in the world. Nor does saying Mary worship is optional take away from the reality of complete worship of the mother of Jesus going on all over. And I think the point Tim makes is really important, and I hope both of you will think about. The Christ that is the Roman bread is not the true Christ that sits in heaven at the side of the Father high above the heavens raised for our justification. I was talking to Eric W about this today. i really think its an issue of not having true saving faith. I have said this before, the scripture says that faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things NOT seen. Blessed are those who have not seen and believed. Christ said He will come again and eat with us. But for now He has left us the Spirit. And if you read the quotes by Augustine I left here today we know two things. We can’t eat the physical body of Jesus because it is at the right hand of God, and secondly the supper isn’t a sacrifice for our sins. Augustine made this clear, and the Scripture is more clear. ” The things i speak to you are SPIRIT, the FLESH profits NOTHING. God bless you both.
Kevin – you are correct if the Eucharist is not Christ. You don’t believe His words, fine.
Augustine wrote quite a bit about the Eucharist. If you could provide me with a couple more quotes from him supporting that he did not believe the Eucharist is the body of Christ than I’ll consider what you are saying.
Are you saying Christs flesh profits nothing?
Another thing are you sayin Jesus can only be at one place at a time? Weird. You are making Him to be more like Zeus.
Tim – it’s not your cut and paste its your conclusions.
I’m sure you know what they mean by grace comes through her since you claim to have studied all this. If you don’t then you need to do some more studying. It doesn’t mean you have to go through her to get to Jesus or receive graces. I know you know this but you continue to force your conclusion which is why I’m not inclined to take the time to find the support and paste it here. You will read it, dismiss it and continue to misrepresent Catholic teaching on Mary.
If you have truth on your side there’s no need to tell half truths and misrepresent. You tend to act like a politician who will use sound bites to misrepresent ones position to win an election.
So tell me in all your extensive research on Mary did you ever come across what we mean by graces coming through Mary? Did you ever bother to ask? I bet you did but chose to ignore the answer because it didn’t fit your narrative.
Hi, CK,
Thanks for your explanation.
I do know, thank you. I also know that pope after pope, and “saint” after “saint,” “blessed” after “blessed” has insisted that the only way to Jesus is through Mary and that all of our prayers ought to be directed through her and anyone who doesn’t pray to her is damned for all eternity:
Benedict XV, Litterae Apostolicae, Inter Sodalicia, March 22, 1918, AAS 10, 1918, 182.
St. John Eudes
St. Bridget of Sweden
St. John Eudes
St. Thomas More
St. John Capistrano
St. Louis Marie de Montfort
Bl. Alan de la Roche
No pressure, of course. Prayer to Mary is “optional.” (Wink, wink).
Tim
CK, additional thoughts on prayers to Mary. Please keep in mind as you read these things what you yourself believe to be true, namely that “religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra” (Lumen Gentium, 25), and therefore it is a sin to disregard the Pope’s insistence that Catholics everywhere pray to Mary:
Pope Pius XII, On Prayers For The Persecuted Church (1958)
Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter on the Occasion of the First of May (1965):
Pope Paul VI, Christi Matri (1966)
So yes, as I have said elsewhere, Catholics are required to pray to Mary, for their pope insists that they do, and he is to be obeyed, and Catholics are required to worship the eucharist, for their pope insists that nobody eats the “flesh” unless they first adore it, and he is to be obeyed.
Now, CK, I believe you were saying something about “If you have truth on your side there’s no need to tell half truths and misrepresent.” Isn’t it a half-truth to say that Catholics aren’t “required” to pray to Mary? They are required to obey the pope, even when he does not speak infallibly, and the pope insists that Catholics everywhere must pray to Mary.
What I find with Catholics who want to invite people to consider joining the Roman Catholic Church, is that they play down the logical implications of their own doctrines so they can appear more attractive.
Tim
CK, each of us incarnates the gospel because the Spirit dwells in us by faith alone in Christ alone. Jesus never said anything about a continuing incarnation. Paul speaks of the church as a metaphor. But the church doesn’t replace what Jesus in a saving revealing way. The unique ministry of Christ isn’t replaced by the continuing ministry of the church. The church may imitate Christ, continue His mission, obey Him, bear witness to Him, but not continue His atonement. You can go online and look up all Augustine’s quotes. The one I provided is pretty explanatory as well as the one on no more sacrifices. . Are you going to change your mind now? Christ said the flesh profits nothing . IOW without saving faith ( and those who follow every word of RC doctrine and worship the elements are in that category) Christ’s flesh profits nothing. Eating His body and drinking His blood is coming and believing. It’s clear by Jesus own words. But Rome reads it like a metaphysical essay. John 6 isn’t even about the Lord’s supper, wrong place, wrong time. 2 years before it. Again I have said tis many times. Your church has a faulty view of the Trinity. Christ came to incorporate us into His body thru the Spirit, not the flesh. Augustine ” If what you see in the sacrament visibly is taken spiritually. Christians worship Christ who is in heaven through the Spirit. And lastly the scripture is clear, He was made like us in everything. His body is in heaven where the bible says it is. Cosmic Jesus everywhere is Jesus of Nazareth nowhere.
Ck, whats troubling is why you would defend anything the Catholic church would say about graces coming thru Mary, no matter what they mean. The first thing a true believer would says is we worship the Lord God with ALL of our heart, soul, and mind. There is no room in a Christians heart to worship thru anyone but Jesus. And there is no one qualified to provide grace but the Father thuu Christ alone by the working of the Spirit. Isaiah 48 is clear He shares his glory with noone else, not Pope, or Mary, or anyone.
CK said ” are you saying that Christ cant be in more than one place at one time. You make Him sound like Zeus.” Zeus isnt a member of the Trinity. Jesus reigns in the heart of His children thru the Spirit by faith, not thru the church, not thru Mary, and not through the bread, but thru the Spirit. Chrsit’s body is in heaven where the scripture says its.. He is at His altar in heaven applying His perfect sacrifice on our behalf. Admitidly this will be hard for you to accept because you are taught you must worship Christ in the Eucharist abd you must eat increases of your salvation by eating Him physically. The Mass is the summit of your salvtion, Its way more important than faith which is mere mental assent in Roman Catholicism. But in scripture its full orbed, John says by it we overcome the world. Faith alone in Christ alone is the only thing that will save a person, not the Catholic work of the Mass. Thanks for considering my words.
Tim, by the way, don’t forget to explain why the Eastern Churches celebrate Mass. If you have already answered I can’t find it. Why do churches not in communion with Rome celebrate the same 7 Sacraments if they were separated from Rome in the 11 century?
Tim, last night I heard a message on you tube by Carl Trueman called ” Calvin on Calvinism.” It was a history on the Reformed confessions. Why they came about and pastorally what they offered the people. Many people think there was unity and orginization in Roman Catholicism prior to the Reformation. His is false. They were disorganized, without defined confession, and steeped in idolatry. Trent was a knee jerk response to the united and defined confessions that started in Scottland. Roman Catholicism had never addressed doctrines like jbfa. Reformers were way ahead. But he said a couple things about the why of the Reformed confessions. One was assurance to the believer that scripture promises. And second the blatant idolatry the was damming peoples souls. I wanted to share this because this site has really focused on the many idolatries of Roman Catholicism and is carrying on the work of the Reformers. What was amazing to me, and I did not know was the Catholic church and europe were diverse and loosly disorginized, with many different practices and the Reformed confessions were unified and in statements and belief. It offered the scripture and assurance to th ed people in the church. When the right understanding of faith and the word was known, can you imagine the peace God must have brought? Thx K
Kevin,
You are way off topic. That is why I am still waiting for Tim to respond after days. What the hell does some TV show you watched have to do with anything?
Jim, Eric W said it perfectly. You dont believe transubstantiation on proof, you believe it by implicit faith in false authority. You want proof it isnt. 1. Look at it. Are you ready to worship in Spirit and truth.
Kelvin,
You are such a dope. Of course I cannot scientifically prove it anymore than than Tim can disprove it. Did you just now wake up to what the conversation is about?
Yes indeed, I can prove it on AUTHORITY. In theological matters, authority and not reason or science is what counts.
Read John 6. Read the Gospels. Read Paul. That is my proof from authority. Read the Fathers ( especially Augustine. )
Now go back to sleep.
Jim wrote to Kevin:
…Of course I cannot scientifically prove it anymore than than Tim can disprove it…. Yes indeed, I can prove it on AUTHORITY. In theological matters, authority and not reason or science is what counts.
R L Dabney:
But passing from the exegetical, to the general argument, a literal transubstantiation is impossible, because it violates our senses. They all tell us it is still bread and wine, by touch, taste, smell, sight. The senses are the only inlets of information as to external facts; if we may not believe their deliberate testimony, there is an end of all acquired knowledge. This may be fairly stated in a stronger form: it is impossible that my mind can be validly taught the fact of such a transubstantiation; for the only channel by which I can be taught it is the senses; and transubstantiation, if true, would teach me that my senses do not convey truth. It is just as likely that I do not hear Rome saying, “Transubstantiation is true,” when I seem to hear her, as that I do not see a wafer, but a Christ, when I seem to see it. Nor is it any answer to say: the senses deceive us. This is only when hurried; and the sensible medium imperfect, or senses diseased. Here all the four senses of all men, in health unanimously perceive only bread and wine.
Kevin said – Ck, whats troubling is why you would defend anything the Catholic church would say about graces coming thru Mary, no matter what they mean.
Me – So what they mean doesn’t matter only what you think they mean matters. This is one reason why you get banned & no one likes to dialogue with you. See my cut and paste below. You don’t have to agree with it but hopefully it will help you see where we are coming from. Kevin, ponder this – what do you think would of happened if Mary had said “no” like Eve?
“God permitted the Redemption of mankind to depend on the free-will decision of a human being. Whether or not we would have a mediator was dependent on Mary’s “yes.” Had there been no “yes” from Mary, there would have been no mediator. Thus the graces that come through Jesus may be said to come to us, in a secondary way, via Mary—not as the origin of the graces, but as a conduit. The Catholic Church always has taught that Jesus Christ alone redeemed mankind (neither Mary nor any other creature had the power to do so), and ultimately only through him are salvation and grace obtained.”
Kevin said – Jim, Eric W said it perfectly. You dont believe transubstantiation on proof, you believe it by implicit faith in false authority. You want proof it isnt. 1. Look at it. Are you ready to worship in Spirit and truth.
Me – heh..you believe the bible is inspired on implicit faith in the same false authority.
CK, Got it, the bible is a false authority and Mary is Queen, mediator of all graces for salvation. You put your implicit faith in a mere sinner like ourselves the Pope as head, and we put our faith in the WORD as head. I like our chances. K
CK, said ” what would have happened if Mary would have said no like Eve.” Impossible. God orchestrated the whole thing. And once you forget about wanting credit ( because thats really what the Mary thing is about, liberation and self focus), you will see its all about Christ. CK, Mary had a way different view of herself than your church or you do of her. She only had room in her heart for Christ, it wasn’t about “her”. She called herself a sinner and a bondslave of the Lord. She knew Colossians 1 ” for HE is to have preeminence in everything” Mary called herself a slave of Christ and she called Him her savior. Rome calls her Queen of Heaven, sinless, and gateway to salvation. And you buy it hook, line, and sinker. But when one considers the bible to be false authority, I understand why. God bless you CK, and I pray nothing for you but the truth of the word of God. K
Kevin how do you know the bible is the word of God? What infallible authority told you all the books in your bible are inspired? How do you know you have all of them or some or don’t have a mixture of inspired and non inspired books?
Btw I’m still waiting on a couple of additional quotes from St Augustine denying the Eucharist is the body of Christ.
Why did you ignore my post on Mary? Does it make sense? What if she had said no?
CK, since the first “infallible” authority to tell you that “all the books in your bible are inspired” was the Council of Trent in 1546, and frankly a lot of people were not even aware of the infallibility of the pope back then, how did the church survive? How could the church go 1500 years without infallible knowledge of the canon of the bible, and then go on after that without infallible knowledge of the canon of tradition and the canon of infallible ex cathedra papal statements?
Tim
CK, very easy. My total Faith is in the Word. He is infallible. To the word and to the testimony. Scripture says to the one who is perishing it is foolishness, but to the one who is being saved it is the bread of life. You think its foolishness CK, and I think it is the bread of my salvation. I often am amused at the utter strain on behalf of Roman Catholics to question and disprove the infallibility of God breathed scripture, yet they defend with all their heart the most sinful and corrupt institution in History as being infallible. Amazing! Thats why Paul said I did not come to baptize but preach the gospel, because he knew it was the only thing that can save a man. It gives men peace with God when God’s wrath and our sins, past present future, were nailed to the cross. I am no loner an enemy of God, but a friend. I stand acquitted before the bar of God having passed out of judgment into life. Not because of anything I do, but because of everything God did in His son. He is my righteousness. I hope you find this assurance CK. I hope you turn form the idolatry which is the catholic church, the Pope, and Mary, and trust Jesus alone for your salvation. God bless. K
Tim
One of the pre-nicene fathers said this,
“”You who are wont to assist at the divine Mysteries, know how, when you receive the body of the Lord, you take reverent care, lest any particle of it should fall to the ground and a portion of the consecrated gift (consecrati muneris) escape you. You consider it a crime, and rightly so, if any particle thereof fell down through negligence.”
Why the big deal if a piece of cracker fall on the floor?
Now, when you are through talking to CK, please answer my question about churches separated from Rome buying into the “mark o’ the beast”.
Jim,
The Ante-nicene father to whom you refer is Origen, from his 13th homily on Exodus. The specific language, “you take reverent care” is quite good. The origin Latin is “cum omni cautela et veneratione servatis” or literally, “with caution and with due reverence.” I, too, believe that the Lord’s supper should be celebrated reverently and with caution lest we too hastily pass the bread and wine from person to person and pew to pew. But don’t let the Latin fool you. The word “veneratione” isn’t the word for “worship” which would be either “adorare” or “colere,” or some conjugation thereof.
With that behind us, we can proceed with what Origen was saying. You’ll be happy to know that he was using their outward reverence during the Lord’s supper as a way to rebuke them, for they were going through the motions of rituals, but were paying no attention to what mattered more, and by all means, should have received twice there reverence they displayed during the Lord’s supper:
In other words, the Lord’s Supper is great, and I’m glad you show great reverence when you partake of the Lord’s supper, lest by an act of negligence, you should drop the elements. But when you preach the word—an activity twice as important—you are completely negligent. This should not be so.
Now contrast the fact that the preaching of the Word was the high point of the worship service in the early church, with the current teaching of the Roman Church which says that the worship of the Eucharist is the apex, the zenith, the high point of the worship service and indeed of the Christian life.
Sorry, Jim. No evidence for Eucharistic Adoration in Origen.
Tim
Tim said –
CK, since the first “infallible” authority to tell you that “all the books in your bible are inspired” was the Council of Trent in 1546, and frankly a lot of people were not even aware of the infallibility of the pope back then, how did the church survive? How could the church go 1500 years without infallible knowledge of the canon of the bible, and then go on after that without infallible knowledge of the canon of tradition and the canon of infallible ex cathedra papal statements?
Me – I can look at history and see that Christians turned to the Church to declare what was and what was not true to define heresies and settle disagreements . The used the same formula, Tradition, Scripture and Magesterium (whatever they called it). This is how I have assurance the bible is inspired & without error. It doesn’t I’m right but it’s consistent.
You all say this process was corrupt very early on and that all you need is the bible. No tradition, no Magesterium. So I’m asking you using the Bible alone or whatever you believe how you have complete infallible assurance that the all the books in your bible are inspired and that the 7 books we have don’t belong there.
In all seriousness this was one of my major issues when I was considering leaving the Church. No one has been able to give a good answer when I asked . It was all ad hoc, inconsistent or just waved off. It’s inpired because it just is.
CK, ” how do we have complete infallible assurance that all the books in your bible are inspirired” Faith. ” its the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen. We believe that its God breathed because it says it is. We believe that faith comes thru hearing the Word of God Romans 10:17, because we believe that God wrote thr Paul. Its inspired because it says it is. The greater question CK is why do you believe a human institution is infallible, but the word of God isnt? We trust God that His once and for all deposit was a work of His hand. We hold every word of it as our salvation. The thing I love about the Helvetic confession is that the very words preached from the Pastor from scripture were the words of God. To those being saved its life.
The CK, Jesus said unless we are willing to give up everything, hate mother, brother, sister, brother and follow Him, we are not worthy of the kingdom. At some point men like Timand Walt had to calculate the cost. Like you, their whole identity was raised in a church that told them it was the only way to salvation, that it was the true infallible churc of Jesus Christ, that sacraments, Mary, one’s own works, following the Pope, wearing their scapular were all necessary to be accepted by God. Tim and Eric W were steeped in the Mary worship. But thru the mercy of God they studied His word and they gave it all up to follow Christ in faith alone. The rich young ruler wouldnt give up those things. Jesus said he coulnt come in unless he gave up all religion and follow Him alone. He walked away sad. Salvation will cost you everything that has been your identity for your whole life? You have to give up your idols, that church, and follow Christ alone in faith alone. I gave up all my identity. I loved my sin and my idols. They all had female names, and drugs, and my lifestyle . He, and Him alone is the only way. All of our trust in His righteouness and not in ours, our works, or our idols. Tim says an amazing thing that I will never forget. When you leave the cemetery of dead men’s bones, you dont look back and miss it. I left my sin to follow the Savior, who alone can save. And the works that come from trusting in Christ alone are sweet smelling to God, even though they are imperfect. CK, you will have to walk away from Catholic doctrine to be reconcilled to God. Will you?
CK, I think in what Tim has presented hear in all his articles but specifically in ” The rise of Roman Catholicism” shows us what happens when God’ word is relegated subordinate to human tradition. The result is Roman Catholicism and development in doctrine that Newman is only visible to Catholics. There is a reason four that. It doesnt exist in scripture. Roman Catholicism is mostly a mixture of paganism with a little Christianity sprinkled in. Ck, bottom line is the word established the true church, and not vice versa. We reject a Papacy and the power grantedvto it by a false papal curia. Tim’ s words ring true the church is known by its apostolicity before thr 4th century , and by it’s Protestantim after it. Paul’s use of church has always been a metaphor for Christ’s body of individual believers. That is the visible church. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit. God’ s Word dwells in us, and that’s how we know that the word is infallible, by the inner witness of the Spirit by and with the word of God. Hope this helps. This my last post of the day. I’ ll sit back and read. As far as me giving you more Augustine quotes you requested, I dont see the purpose. Tim gave you one where he said you are not to eat of this body which you see……, I gave you two, one said receive spiritually what you see visibly, and the other said communion isnt a sacrifice. At some point if you have to believe. Once you place your faith in Christ alone for your salvation, it will all become clear and bring you great peace. Walt, Tim, Eric W, Bob S and dont agree on everything, but we all share the vital things, 5 solas. Amen. God bless you.
Kevin – The bible didn’t drop out oh the sky.
Had you been born before the reformation you would be saying the same thing about the bible available at that time, except that, those bibles by your standards today contained books that were not inspired. Heck, you’d probably be quoting verses out of the book of Wisdom and giving the same circular arguments.
How does modern Kevin have any more assurance than ancient Kevin that every book in your bible is inspired? Was the Holy Spirit not available at that time?
Jesus isthe same yesterday, today, and tommorow. The Word existed before the foundation of the world. God created the world by His word, brought Abe out of a moon worshiping family by His word, raised Lazzarus from the dead by His word, saved Womanizer Kevin by His word, Mary worshiping Tim and Eric by His word. Let ther be light…. justifiction, Let the earth bring forth…. sanctification. CK, if you havent been convinced by the greatest Protestant apologist, Im notgoing to convince you. When Is all said and done CK it comes down to faith in the Wordword, and without it is impossible to please Him. Catholics show me more than anything is they dont have saving faith. Because those who have never, ever question the infallibilty of the word. His Spirit bears witness with our spirit that the word is gold to us. When you know this in your heart CK you will have arrived at saving faith. Fait alone in the word saves, faith in a church leaves you where you are in question and doubt. The scripture says ” the word made more sure in our lives” to the one being saved it is the bread of life. That church will never give you peace, it cant. Great conversation.
Got to go. See ya
Here are some Augustine quotes on the Eucharist for you to chew on (pun intended). Pay close attention to the last one. He casually mentions something about adoring. Feel free to wave these away…
“That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)
“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)
“How this [‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)
“Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED.” (Letters 98:9)
“Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him.” (City of God 10:20)
“By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof.” (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)
“Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church.” (Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)
“But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death.” (Sermons 172:2)
“…I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING.” (Psalms 98:9)
Thank you, CK. Here are some more quotes from Augustine. This is from a paper by a Roman Catholic on Augustine’s view of the Lord’s Supper:
If it’s so obvious that Augustine held to Transubstantiation, then why are these citations called “this difficulty”? The matter is finally resolved (at least to the satisfaction of the Roman Catholic cited above), by referring to Augustine’s comments on Psalm 99, which, as I have elsewhere explained, were grossly decontextualized by Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei, for in the same homily in which Augustine says “not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would be sinning if we did not do so,” he also says, “Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth” (Augustine, An Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8). What we were to adore was not the elements of the Lord’s supper, but the incarnate Christ now in heaven, for that is as close to worshiping God’s footstool as Augustine was willing to go.
More on this later, but for now, thanks for posting your comments.
Tim
Btw if communion is not a sacrifice why have an altar?
Have a good & safe weekend.
1 Corinthians 1: 10 ” for as often as you eat this BREAD and drink the CUP , you proclaim the Lor’s death UNTIL HE COMES. Paul missed the the RC message. It was a supper at a table of rembrance and proclamation of the Lord’s death tha HAD occured, not a re breaking of our Lord’s body to expiate sin. ” The work of the people at an Altar is a Romann invention” when you put in the true study instead of pulling things off the internet with no context, you will find out that sacrifice at the supper with the fathers never meant what Trent put forth as another sacrifice for sins. In fact Trent anathamatizes anyone who doesnt believe it is a real sacrifice for sins. But this is never what it meant in scripture or the fathers. Sacrifice wasSpiritual sacrifices of prayer and thanksgiving. It was never what you have to believe because of Trent’s abomination. I posted again because it is important that you know this. Im sure Tim will put in perspective Augustine’s quotes. Let me leave you with this. 1 Corinthians 11:27 ” therefore whoever eats the BREAD and drinks the CUP of the Lord……. Paul calls it bread. Again Augustine ifwhat you receive visibly is received spiritually. Without faith, the Spirit and the word, it is just bread and not nourishment for our faith. You cant eat His body physically because He is in heaven. Or why would we be asked to remember Him id He was physicallt the bread. We wouldnt have to proclaim anything if He kept getting sacrificed. Think about it. CK what does this verse say to you, and please dont avoid answering directly, ” the words I spoke to you are SPIRIT, the FLESH profits nothing”? I cant wait for your answer. You have a great weekend yourself. If I could recomend a book on Trent that is awesome Marin Chemnitz anylyzing Trent. God bless.
Tim – I didn’t say it was obvious. My point was that your view is not as clear cut as you claim it to be. I think the quotes I provided prove it. You believe your interpretations and authority on the subject matter is greater than the Church’s . At the end of the day it comes down to interpretation and authority. I don’t have the time and probably mental capacity to figure this out. What do you recommend I do to get to the truth? If I do what you suggest and come up with a different answer what then? Is there any way for me, a lay person, to have assurance of the truth?
Btw who’s this Catholic author?
CK,
The piece I cited is “St. Augustine on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist,” By Rev. J. B. Jaggar, S.J., B.A.
You observed,
I am quite sure that you do.
I suggest you study the OT rejection of worshiping objects. Then take a look at John’s warning in 1 John 5:21, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.” We must flee from idols, and we are warned of a coming global religion that will be so convincing that the Church Fathers themselves believed that they might stumble into Antichrist’s trap without even realizing it, and did not trust their own judgment. Augustine himself was concerned that he might fall into the trap:
If Antichrist was going to convince people to worship an idol, what would be the easiest thing to convince professing Christians to worship? A statue of Zeus? A statue of Artemis? A golden calf? No, it would be impossible to pull that off. But the Eucharist? Yes, convince professing Christians that they are not worshiping an idol, but rather are worshiping God Himself, and you have laid the trap. But that takes time, and that’s what the development of doctrine is all about. It is no surprise that Francis of Assisi had to “introduce” Eucharistic adoration in Italy, where it should have been practiced since ancient times if it were true (but was not). It is no surprise that we have no evidence of Eucharistic adoration prior to 1,000—it is simply assumed. The fact is, it took the devil that long to get people to believe they could legitimately bow down to a created object and worship it.
CK, does your Eucharist come to life? (Yes, it does). The scripture warns that Antichrist’s idol will do that (Revelation 13:13-15) Does it speak? (Yes, it does). The scripture warns that Antichrist’s idol will do that (Revelation 13:13-15) Does the Apparition of Mary push for Eucharistic Adoration where ever it appears? (Yes, it does). The scripture warns that Antichrist’s False Prophet will do that (Revelation 13:13-15). Does the Apparition echo the doctrines of the Pope? (Yes it does). The scripture warns that Antichrist’s False Prophet will do that (Revelation 13:12). Did the Roman Empire divide into 13 dioceses, and did the Roman Catholic church claim three of those diocese and come up among the remaining 10 in accordance with Daniel 7? (Yes it did). Scripture warns that Antichrist would do that (Daniel 7). Does the name of the pope, Vicarius Filii Dei, add up to 666? (Yes it does.) The scripture warns that Antichrist’s name would do that (Revelation 13:18).
I could go on and on with Rome’s fulfillment of the prophecies of Antichrist. But I don’t want you to believe in me. I want you to read the Text and see for yourself that you have fallen into Antichrist’s trap. You are worshiping the idol about which you have been sufficiently warned. Your plea that you “don’t have the time and probably mental capacity to figure this out,” is not true, and will not help you in the day of judgment.
If you would have assurance, you must first let go of Antichrist’s hand. That is the only way. Antichrist Roman Catholicism cannot save you. God says throughout His word that you must not bow to idols, and Antichrist says, as the Serpent did before him, “Yea, hath God said?…” (Genesis 3:1). By this means, a great many people have been persuaded to bow to idols and worship them, against God’s clear condemnation of such worship.
Tim
CK, if you could while you respond to the verse in John 6 that I asked you, could you also tell me what you think Hebrews 10:14 says ” For by ONE offering He PERFECTED for all time those for whom He died” I’ll await your answer. Thx K.
Kevin – I missed your questions because I skimed over your comments. They are so hard to read. Break them up into paragraphs or something like Tim.
Frankly we have gone over John 6 and like everything else it comes down to interpretation of scripture. You will tell me I’m following a man made institution and how you are following the Holy Spirit (which really means as interpreted by some theologian you happen to agree with).
Ck wrote to Kevin:
Frankly we have gone over John 6 and like everything else it comes down to interpretation of scripture.
Jim wrote to Kevin:
Read John 6…..That is my proof from authority.
And now you know……the rest of the story.
The full story is Tim’s citations plus CK’s citations.
Each one thinks the other is on the path to Hell. Ck is an idolater according to Tim. Tim denies Jesus before men according to CK. And all you gotta do to prove it is read the Scriptures and cite ECF’s to confirm. Who’ll break the tie?
Tim’s got Kevin’s vote. CK’s got Jim’s vote.
Who will be the next member voted off the tribe and sent to Exile Island…….?
Hi, Bob, you wrote, “And all you gotta do to prove it is read the Scriptures and cite ECF’s to confirm.”
Well, I don’t go to the ECFs to “confirm” my interpretation of Scripture. I do enjoy studying them and more often than not I find that the Roman spin on them does not fit the context. In the end, however, the Fathers do not confirm an interpretation of Scripture. They were men like us and contradicted each other and contradicted themselves.
One of the best examples from Scripture on man’s responsibility to believe the Word of God is in the story of the Man of God in 1 Kings 13. The king invited him to his house, and the man of God said, “If thou wilt give me half thine house, I will not go in with thee, neither will I eat bread nor drink water in this place: For so was it charged me by the word of the LORD, saying, Eat no bread, nor drink water, nor turn again by the same way that thou camest” (vv 8-9).
But along came another prophet claiming that an angel had spoken to him saying the exact opposite, namely that the man of God may go “into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water.” But this was a lie. (v. 18). What to do? One man thinks he has understood the Word of God, but another says he has the opposite interpretation.
So the man of God considered the second word as authoritative, rejecting the first, and “he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank water” (v. 19).
Then the deceiving prophet received a real Word from the Lord, saying “thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the LORD, and hast not kept the commandment which the LORD thy God commanded thee” (1 Kings 13:21).
So the man of God was killed on the road for disobeying the Word from the Lord. (v. 24)
Was that fair? Why were the first and third words authentic, but the second was not? This will frustrate the person who expects external authentication of the Word of God. The reason the first and the third words were authentic is because the first and third were from the Lord and the second was not.
That’s all we get. His Word is to be believed because of Who said it, not because of who said He said it.
Roman Catholicism is the second prophet in 1 Kings 13, saying, “I know you heard the Word of the Lord, but He told me the exact opposite.”
If you want to break the tie, consider who came first—Christianity or Roman Catholicism. (Hint: Roman Catholicism did not start until the 4th century).
Tim
And TimKauffmanism didn’t start until the 21st century. You said yourself that your stuff is “sufficiently self-discrediting because I am proposing something that runs counter to the received wisdom of the day.”
Late 20th, actually. Copernicus wasn’t wrong just because he was the first to say it.
Tim
Bob will break the tie, he is the arbitrator. Somebody’s playing good cop bad cop. It’s not a game. Every man must be convinced in his own heart.
KEVIN–
“Every man must be convinced in his own heart”….? Well, that just convinces me in my heart that the best anyone can do is equal to what someone else feels in their heart–your word against their word so to speak. I’m sure every Roman Catholic feels convinced in his own heart that they are not idolaters, just as you feel that they are, with no authority to make the decision either way that binds both parties. STALEMATE!
Y’know, the Arians could defend their case very well with Scripture. And that heresy nearly tore the Church apart. It took an ecumenical council with the authority to bind the entire Church to finally condemn Arianism and put it away for good.
Today, the Church is so fractured with diverse and rebellious beliefs that it does not recognize an all binding authority now. Oh yes, you say that Jesus is your authority or the Word is your authority or The Holy Spirit is your authority. And so does everybody else who has a differing opinion than you.
And trying to convince each other’s hearts has turned into…..well…..a game! A 500 year old game that so far has had no conclusive winners. You might as well be doing all this just to hear yourself talk, because nobody else is listening since they themselves are tooting their own horn.
So, just sit back and enjoy the game, Pumpkin, because that is exactly what it is.
Nighty-night, Sweetie.
Bob, I disagree with you. I think the true church of Christ is unified and God has, is , and will always carry out His purposes in His church. Paul uses church as a metaphor for the body of Christ. This will always be made up of true believers who profess true religion, those who trust in Christ alone for their salvation. For instance in the 1500’s Europe was diverse. Many think the Roman Catholic church was organized and had defined doctrines. The exact opposite was true. It was a mishmash of beliefs, latent idolatry ( like today) and very few defined doctrines. You could god from Geneva to England and see 100’s of different peoples. On the other hand the Reformed confessionals were amazingly together. Defined, simply stated for Pastoral ministry. God will always accomplish hi purpose in his church. THE visible church thing is way overrated. Bob and CK and Jim and everybody holding hands and singing kumbaya. But it takes saving faith to believe God is building his church, and it takes saving faith to see the unity in the church. And it takes saving faith to know without question the bible is the infallible word of God. God has allot of his pumpkins and He is using them. K
Bob, I have absolutely no problem with the tension that has lasted for 500 hundred years. Maybe you are just being Polyanish about it. The scripture tells us these tensions exist. I mean Tim has documented thouroghly that tension existed with the fathers thinking antichrist was among them. And as much as you want to criticize the witness in me by the Spirit with and by God’s infallible word, scripture tells me THIS is my assurance. Romans 5:17, 1 John 2:27. I dont need to convince anyone, nor do I give a rip if someone sees it as a game. Bob, plant a flag. If you dont stand for something you’ll fall for anything. It seems to me that you want everybody to hold hands and sing kumbaya. That isnt happening. Thats why we Reformed believe in the soverienty of God and the infallibility of scrpture. We planted our flag on the Word. Its the only thing that can save you. Romd cant save you Bob. Start with Romans 10:9-10. In fact you can end with that verse. As we say in the theological world its perspicous. Then we can sing a new song I will write. Jesus is my rock, he is all I ever need, Rome is crock, this I will conceed, now I planted my trust in Him, my heart can say with joy, He is my assurance, my salvation guaranteed. Romans 4:16.
Heh!
They are coming after you once Jim and I are exiled.
Lutherans and Anglicans pay too much respect to Mary the false prophet!
Erick W – I hear you. So I’m want to go back to the beginning and figure out who had the authority after the apostles. How was it decided which scriptures where inspired. We know men decided this with the help of the Holy Spirit. Who or what gave those men the authority and how did everyone know they had the authority. Right now I see the Church doing this.
Ck, you wrote:
I hear you. So I’m want to go back to the beginning and figure out who had the authority after the apostles.
You crossed a threshold without an invitation. Ask yourself why you should try to “figure out” the authority that followed. You have no right to begin the search. Why look for an authority who “discontinued” a history of NOT giving infallible decisions on scripture (in the sense of canonizing) ?
We have this long history of infallible agents who didn’t use their authority to canonize. Your “Church” is the oddball out.
Sorry I don’t follow you.
CK,
Infallible agents:
1. OT prophets
2. Jesus
3. Apostles
All of them were infallible and had authority to canonize any existing scripture during their lives. They didn’t canonize, right ? This is a history of infallible agents NOT canonizing. Why look for any infallible authority after them who canonized ? To search for an authority after the Apostles is to look for an infallible agent who broke continuity. What right do you have to begin the search ?
CK, said to Eric ” so I want you go back to the beggining and figure out who had the authority after the Apostles. And this will convince you CK? You want Eric to tell you want you want each one of us to say, that the Roman Catholic church was the authority that gives scripture its sufficiency. But we believe that scripture is sufficient by virtue of being the word of God. The word established the church. There was an understanding early on a n inspired canon before the church put it in a binder. But this is like issue with the Eucharist, without saving faith It wont matter what your view is. Without saving faith in the right God, you drink judgment to yourself. Without faith it is impossible to please Him. No one is ever going to answer to your satisfaction about the absolute infallibility of God breathed scripture by virtue of it coming from the hand of God. I have never opened my bible and thought, are these really the inspired books. I open it and say this is amazing, perfect, from the hand of God. Because through those words I was saved. No church could ever come close to the infallible word of God. We are to meditate on it morning, noon, and night. K
Am I not mistaken that the Church came before the New Testament Scriptures were written? And weren’t the Scriptures written by members of the Church? Wouldn’t it be natural to think that the Church would have authority and that the Scriptures would testify to that? When did the Church lose that authority to the Scriptures?
BOB,
What prevents us from saying: Apostles (and/or associates) wrote the NT, so it’s natural that they would have canonized existing scripture with their writings.
Aren’t you glad somebody did compile a final canon? Or would you rather have it open for editing?
BOB, you asked:
Aren’t you glad somebody did compile a final canon? Or would you rather have it open for editing?
Response:
If an infallible agent exists today, then I want it open for editing. If an infallible agent doesn’t exist, or didn’t exist since the Apostles, then I’m glad attempts were made to finalize a canon.
Eric W – I guess you are saying there’s no assurance that all the books in your bible inspired.
Plus who decided that the apostles associates writings were inspired but not the writings of their associates? I’m thinking of St Ignatius of Antioch as an example.
CK, said I guess your saying there is no assurance that all the books in your bible are inspired.” Hardly. 1 John 1:27 ” As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to yeah you, but as His anointing teaches you about ALL things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.” The inner witness of the spirit with and by the word of God tells jus the bible is God breathed. But you can’t know this CK until you let go of Antichrist’s hand and come to Christ like a child, having attained nothing of virtue or value. We sing the hymn ” come as you are” in simple faith. I’ve never met a Protestant brother who ever questioned the inherency or the infallibility of Scripture. Because to the man who is being saved it is the bread of life. You will never have your question answered until you believe. God Bless.
CK,
Do you now, or have you ever worshiped bread? In any of its myriad forms; white, whole wheat, raisin, raisin nut, pumpernickel, sourdough, thin sliced, rye, sesame, stale, fresh, etc.?
Do you now or have you ever prayed to a bisquit, hamburger bun, tortilla ( with or without beans and sauce ), pizza dough ( with or without the fixin’s ), or pita bread?
Are you sure? Have you ever genuflected when passing a bakery ? Have you ever been tempted too?
Do you honestly know the difference between bread and Jesus Christ? Would you be willing to swear by it under oath?
Did bread walk upon the water? Did bread heal the lepers? Is bread the Second Person of the Trinity? Did bread create the world ex nihilo? Did bread eat the unleavened bread at Passover time?
How often do you eat bread? Do you butter it? Toast it? Cut the crust off? Have you ever taken a bag of old moldy bread to a park to feed the ducks? The pigeons?
Are you now or ever have been under a doctor’s care for mental illness? Do you take medication? Do you take mind altering chemicals? Have you ever been treated for alcoholism?
Would you be willing to testify in a court of law, under oath, that you actually understand the difference between bread and Jesus Christ?
Would you be willing to bet your eternal salvation on it?
CK,
I, Jim, do not worship bread. I am of sound mind and stone sober as I write this. I am not under duress of any kind.
Tim and Kelvin tell me I am a mad man. They say I cannot tell the difference between the God who made me and the Pillsbury bread dough in my freezer.
I have told them I don’t even like bread that much let alone adore it. They don’t believe me.
What can we do? Are we crazy? Tim and Kelvin couldn’t be mistaken, could they? They wouldn’t be lying or trying to get our goats, would they?
Jim,
The poor soul in Isaiah 44:14-20 “heweth him down cedars” and “he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.” “He falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.” But he doesn’t have the sense to say, “shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?”
You may criticize him for worshiping wood, but he will respond, “I have never worshiped wood in my life. When I walk by the firewood salesman, I do not drop down to my knees and worship what he is selling. When I walk down the path in my garden each morning and encounter a tree, I do not fall on my face before it. When I get a splinter, I do not exclaim, ‘My god is inside me!’ I do not worship trees. I do not worship wood in any form. I am of sound mind. I worship god alone. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to pay respects to my god.”
No matter how sincere he is, God says of him, “a deceived heart hath turned him aside” and “neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, … shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?”
The problem is his deceived heart. What he does seems right to him. Nobody knows they’re deceived. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be deception.
You may say all you like that you do not worship bread, and that you are of sound mind, and that you walk past the flour aisle at the grocery store without so much as a genuflection. Nevertheless, like the deceived man in Isaiah 44:14-20, “a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?” He worshiped a tree. You worship bread.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Did the wood carver have a mandate from Jesus Christ to “do this”?
Jim, you asked,
No. Nor did Jesus command us to bow down to worship the bread. He said, “Take, eat,” not “Take, expose for adoration, bow down, carry in processions throughout the city, and worship, and murder those who will not comply.”
Tim
Jim, said to CK ” do you honestly know the difference between bread and Jesus Christ” Thats the point Jim, Catholics don’t know the difference. Jesus Christ is at the right hand of God in His body, the bread is in front of you at communion. So whey do you worship it as Him?
CK, you wrote:
I guess you are saying there’s no assurance that all the books in your bible inspired.
Plus who decided that the apostles associates writings were inspired but not the writings of their associates? I’m thinking of St Ignatius of Antioch as an example.
Response:
I boast in my assurance that all the books in my bible are inspired. Take it up with God, who knows the secrets of our hearts.
I don’t recognize one universal visible church on earth; therefore, any questions about who “decides” can’t be resolved in the way you want. Each of us must decide for ourselves what we believe, then gather in agreement with other believers. Judgement will come and each stands or falls to their Master. Also, God’s providence provides the conditions and ability to reach adequate answers. Answers from God are related to our station in life.
Eric W said to CK ” I donr recognize one universal visible church on earth therefore any questions about who decides cant be resolved in the way you want it. ” Amen brother. Let me be the second to boast in the fact that all the books in your bible are inspired. I have the same bible.
Kevin, you wrote:
I have the same bible.
Amen Bro…now turn to Matt. 19:21.
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Let’s sell our testimony of Jesus (John 5:39) for a greater testimony ! The poor will return thanks and your bible !
John 5: 39″ You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, it is these that testify of me.” 44 ” how can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God.” Spurgeon said, in those days they had many grand titles, Pious doctor, learned scribe, Honored Rabbi, and there were as many doctors of divinity as there are now. And they went around calling each other by those names until they believed they meant something. Dear sirs, its hard to receive honor and yet expect it. For when the incense burns high in the church, men are blinded byk self deceit and our unable to see the cross.
Tim,
I have asked you 5 times now to explain how the schismatic and heretical churches cut off from Rome bought into your “mark o’ the beast”.
Is it because Kevin and Eric W keep muddying up the blog that you haven’t seen my question this week?
Poor Jim…always the one answering, never the one answered. Don’t worry, the right one will be along shortly. You can visit single dating blogs.
Jim, you wrote,
That is a myth. You can find it exposed here: How Calicut Remained “Christian” for Three Years.
The whole article is worth reading, but here are some rather salient points that call your claim of “Mass saying Christians” meeting da Gama into question:
No priests, no masses… no priests and no sacrificial mass.
Vasco da Gama was not only commissioned to find a route to India. He was also commissioned to “to locate and make friends with the legendary Prester John, the Christian King of the East who was believed to be the descendant of one of the three Magi. This mythical King had occupied the imagination of the crusading Europeans ever since the 12th Century.” So deeply did da Gama wish to satisfy this request of the king that, as Sanjay Subrahmaniam sarcastically notes, he “found them wherever he went.” The credibility of the story beyond Portugal evaporated within three years. Apparently the myth was more persistent within Portugal.
Thanks,
Tim
EricW, I was reading Calvin today in institues, and he said faith includes certainty as opposed to discenment. When I think of the amount of questions we Reformed are asked by Catholics, one’s that always seem to raise skepticism, I often think those who have true saving faith have a certainty to their faith. For instance the absolute infallibility and sufficiency of scripture. Its something we are certain for us, where its always discerning skepticism for Catholics. Do you see this? Or take assurance. All our confessionals assure us that all of our justification is not in our doing, and from this we can have peaceful assurance. And again Catholics have what I would describe as always trying to discern, chamelic , uncertainty. I mean when I think about the amount of questions Tim answers, its amazing. It seems so certain to us. Saving faith is certainly a work of God. The goal is to get from skepticism to saving faith and certainty.
Eric W – Response:
I boast in my assurance that all the books in my bible are inspired. Take it up with God, who knows the secrets of our hearts.
Me – the guy with a pre 1500 bible can say the same thing as can I or the Jews etc… Might as well just say it is because it is. Viva Sola Scriptura
Eric W for instance 1 John 5:13 ” These things Inhave written to you who believe in the name of the son of God, so that you may KNOW that you have eternal lfe. This is the confidence we have before Him” This why the Reformation happened, to return us to the gospel, which offers confident assurance. If this assurance can be presently held by a believer, then our final justification cannot be prdicated on our doing, but solely on the imputed righteouness of Christ. Nothing infused by having to increase can produce this assurance.
CK said ” viva sola scriptura” and the whole church said Amen! The Word is the same yesterday, today, and tommorow. 1 John 5:13, it brings peace.
Jim wrote to Kevin:
“If we sin ( in the future ) we have an Advocate. Do you agree?
Jesus’ Advocacy is not being applied before you sin is it?
You did say that when you “got saved’ all your future sins were forgiven, even prior to committing and repenting of them, did you not?
Explain that please.”
Jim, have you heard of the doctrine of justification?
I explained to Kevin on a past thread the ground, means, etc. of justification. Find that thread to Kevin and you will learn the distinctions. I tried to find the comments, but could not.
Here is a brief article explaining the differences in who Rome vs. Westminster in justification.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/infusionimputation.html
If only you would learn that distinction I would be so pleased.
“Well why do they fall short? Central and essential to the Biblical doctrine of Justification and to Reformation doctrine of Sola Fide is the concept of the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ to the believer. Historically Rome has always contended that the basis of Justification is the righteousness of Christ, but it’s a righteousness infused into the believer rather than being imputed to him. This means that the believer must cooperate with and assent to that gracious work of God and only to the extent that Christ righteousness inheres in the believer will God declare that person Justified. Protestants disagree pointing to the critical difference between infused righteousness and imputed righteousness.”
Tim wrote to Jim (and hopefully Bob too) the following:
“Jim,
Those were regional councils, not ecumenical councils. Only ecumenical councils are “infallible.” The first seven ecumenical councils were:
1 First Council of Nicaea (325)
2 First Council of Constantinople (381)
3 First Council of Ephesus (431)
4 Council of Chalcedon (451)
5 Second Council of Constantinople (553)
6 Third Council of Constantinople (680)
7 Second Council of Nicaea (787)
Did any of these councils declare a canon of Scripture? If not, which is the first ecumenical council to declare a canon of Scripture?
Thanks,
Tim”
Can someone point me to Jim’s reply as I did not find it yet?
This is going to be really interesting to read.
Tim wrote:
“As I have repeated several times on this blog, Rome went apostate in the latter half of the 4th century, consistent with Daniel 7. But the Image of the Beast was not erected for worship until the 11th, consistent with Revelation 13, as I highlighted in When “Mary” Got Busy.
Rome can’t trace its religion any further back than the 4th Century, and she can’t even trace the centerpiece of her religion, Eucharistic Adoration, back any farther than the 11th. That is why you consistently find Roman apologists citing late 4th century Patristics in support of the antiquity of Roman Catholicism, but then when they get to Eucharistic Adoration, the best they can do is the late 11th century.”
I really don’t think either Jim or Bob have grasped what you have been writing. Jim has an uncanny ability, which is very rare, to be able to neither hear nor listen to anything written on this blog, and continue on with the same questions over and over again never reading the reply. Like a broken record.
Tim, notice this comment…this is where someone needs to deal with as this is the real issue. Without an answer, it gets confusing.
“Erick W – I hear you. So I’m want to go back to the beginning and figure out who had the authority after the apostles. How was it decided which scriptures where inspired. We know men decided this with the help of the Holy Spirit. Who or what gave those men the authority and how did everyone know they had the authority. Right now I see the Church doing this.”
Where is the true church within the visible church?
Walt said to Bob, when your talking about the Roman church, your talking about the visible church backsliding into a non christian church. I disagree with this. God has always marked out His church. Roman Catholicism is the apostasy. It has always been a false church. The gates of hell will not prevail against the true church. Antichrist came from within the church, but God’s church has always separated itself from this system. I dont believe Peul taught a universal visible church. It was always a metaphor for the body of Christ. That desnt mean I dont believe in a visible church, not universal. God’s church is made up of many peoples in many countries, all who profess true religion.
TIM–
You said: “Thus, by Bob’s reasoning, perhaps Alexandria was that strong central episcopate that arose to unite doctrine.”
And yet it wasn’t. Who was it?
“Thus, by Bob’s reasoning, perhaps Jerusalem, where “pope Jerome” lived at the time, was that strong central episcopate that arose to unite doctrine.”
And yet it still wasn’t. Who was it?
“Thus, by Bob’s reasoning, perhaps Carthage was that strong central episcopate that arose to unite doctrine.”
And yet again it was not. Who was it?
“Thus, by Bob’s reasoning, perhaps Constantinople was that strong central episcopate that arose to unite the church.”
Still again it was not. Who was it? So far you have only said who it was not. Then who was it?
“I grant to Rome only that it is an interloper and claimed to be that strong central episcopate that “unified the church,” but that is just Rome’s interpretation of history. Another interpretation, consistent with the Scriptures, is that Roman Catholicism arose on time, and in place, to fulfill that of which the apostles and prophets warned, namely an Antichrist that would arise to establish a strong central episcopate.”
So far you have only said who it was not. You say Rome only claimed it but it was really a false claim and instead you still dodge the question by saying Rome was the anti-Christ who the apostles and prophets warned about that was the strong central episcopate…according to Scripture.
I can also tell you it was NOT the Presbyterians, nor was it John Calvin or Martin Luther.
If Rome was NOT the Church who defended against heresies and defined doctrine and preserved the Scriptures and governed the Church from 325 AD to 1100 AD and beyond, then who was it? What is it’s name? Where are they now?
Do they still preserve their traditions they had from 325 AD?
Don’t tell me who they’re NOT. Tell me who they ARE.
Thanks, Bob,
You wrote,
One of the greatest deceptions of Roman Catholicism is precisely what you have articulated here. “Ignore the warnings of Scripture, even though you were plainly warned of the rise of the Beast at the division of the Roman Empire—when the dust settled, we were in charge, and that should suffice, and therefore the prophecies were metaphorical representations of the metanarrative of good vs. evil, or a description of Roman persecution in the 1st century, or warnings of a distant, future antagonist.”
The error in your question is your assumption that “a strong central episcopate” is what the church ought to look like. Why do you think that is so? My citations from the early church fathers were not an attempt to show you who that central episcopate was, but rather to show that the early church was not aware of one, and was not behaving as if it expected one to emerge. There was a collegiality of bishops governing the church, and until Damasus I, Rome’s attempts to rise above the rest were hammered back down by other bishops.
You say Rome was that strong central episcopate that governed the church from Nicea in 323 A.D. onward. Really? How do you know? In what way was Rome strong, central and prime … at Nicea? The fact that you think it was—despite the proliferation of Ante-Nicene and post-Nicene Patristic evidence to the contrary—is an excellent example of just how pervasive the myth of Roman Primacy is. Because you think Rome was strong, central and prime at a time when it clearly was not, you are predisposed to deny the existence of a church that was Biblical, universal, and not Roman at all.
You say I am dodging the question. Very well. I will only respond that I am biding my time.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim wrote to Bob:
“The fact that you think it was—despite the proliferation of Ante-Nicene and post-Nicene Patristic evidence to the contrary—is an excellent example of just how pervasive the myth of Roman Primacy is. Because you think Rome was strong, central and prime at a time when it clearly was not, you are predisposed to deny the existence of a church that was Biblical, universal, and not Roman at all.”
It is really incredible how much evidence you have laid out in this series, even if speculative on an eschatology basis, in the position of Rome in the early church, and yet a few here don’t see any of it as credible evidence. You can quote Scripture and the Romish Sacred Tradition, and they still don’t believe what they read that is factual.
It is clearly amazing how brain washed even the Methodists have become of Rome. It just blows me away how influential Rome has been with even her daughters.
Bob said ” and yet it wasnt. What was it? ” Bob, even Ratzinger admits in the early church there was a pluralty of leadership among bishops. There was no monarchial episcopate. Even Catholic theologians like Brown and Fitmeyer have said this. You acuse Tim of not doing his study, but his post was sufficient evidence. At some point you have to step out of the Catholic church doors and look at the real history here. Its all right here for you, all these articles are awesome. God bless
Bob, there was a post on The bowls 4I believe and It was from Tim to you or Walt. He traced the history of the church. It included where Paul went with the gospel from ocean to ocean, the spead of thecgospel to the British Isles. The excomunicated Bishops such as Jovanius, and many others. When I read it to my wife she cried because Tim drew a picture c how God spread His gospel and built his church. And when the Romish English Bishop was sent by the Pope to the church in Britain, they rejected Rome. The true church has always separated itself from Roman Catholicism, even thru the dark ages. The arrival of the Papacy and and all the false doctrines and idolatry arrived in the 4th century, just as scriptue prophesized. Im still trying to figure out, you said your a Methodist from Texas but you defend Rome like devout Catholic. Anyway hope that helps. God bless.
Bob said,
“If Rome was NOT the Church who defended against heresies and defined doctrine and preserved the Scriptures and governed the Church from 325 AD to 1100 AD and beyond, then who was it? What is it’s name? Where are they now?
Do they still preserve their traditions they had from 325 AD?
Don’t tell me who they’re NOT. Tell me who they ARE.”
I think we are all looking for this answer Bob. It is something I’m sure Tim will address in the future.
http://www.apuritansmind.com/westminster-standards/reformation-of-church-government-in-scotland-1643/
Tim based upon your comments of a universal church of bishops in the early church…what do you think about what the ministers said above in there testimony?
Walt,
I’m assuming you’re referring to this paragraph;
Yes, that is quite right. There was no sense of the need for centrality and primacy of a single episcopate. That had to be presumed and assumed, and against many objections, before it took root.
Thanks so much,
Tim
Walt, Tim, Kevin–
So, none of you can come up with the answer except that it was NOT the Roman Catholic Church. Your “alternative history”
denies the Roman Catholic Church but it doesn’t say who the “alternative” was.
Tim said “There was a collegiality of bishops governing the church, and until Damasus I, Rome’s attempts to rise above the rest were hammered back down by other bishops.” Really?
What made the difference with Damasus 1? What happened to the “alternative church”?
Keep biding your time. You’re bound to come up with something.
Bob,
Pope Damasus I (reigned from 366 – 384 A.D.) was the first pope to claim Rome as an Apostolic See, and first to assert the Primacy of Rome. The Encyclopedia Brittanica makes this abundantly clear:
“Damasus was the first pope to refer to Rome as the apostolic see, to distinguish it as that established by the apostle St. Peter, founder of the church. … Rome’s primacy was officially pronounced by a synod called in Rome in 382 by Damasus…”
Also, in 380 A.D., Emperor Theodosius I issued De Fide Catholica, claiming that Pope Damasus I was the new Pontifex of the state religion. Two years later, Emperor Gratian formally renounced the title Pontifex Maximus.
So basically, right at the time that the Roman empire was divided into 13 dioceses, Damasus I claims to be the strong central episcopate that can unify the church–at the very moment the apostles and prophets had warned that we should expect antichrist to arise.
I know you don’t believe me, and I don’t expect you to. It is interesting to me, however, that I have repeatedly stated that antichrist rose at the end of the fourth century, and when I point out to you that this strong central episcopate that you were seeking rose at the same time, you ask “What difference did it make? The church was unified! That’s the important thing!” That’s exactly what Rome and the Serpent want you to believe.
The real question is, “Does the church require a strong central episcopate in order to be unified?”
Tim
Pssssssst, Tim!
Pope Clement. Around the year 96. He acted like Pope Damasus centuries before Damasus.
Bob, you and CK drop in and you don’t read the posts. Tim and I just had an exchange on the new article about the history of the true church, and as I told you Tim traced the church on a post to you or Walt on bowl 4. And yes you have an uncanny ability to state the obvious. Roman Catholicism was never a part of the true church. It can’t be. It is Antichrist. The coming of a monarchial episcopate was the fulfillment of 2 Thessalonians 2. Before the rise of Roman Catholicism and its false doctrines in the 4th century, the church had a plurality of Bishops that worked together. There was a collegiality. Ratzinger and many Roman theologians today admit this and there wasn’t a monarchial episcopate in the early church, especially one who possessed the power of both swords, civil and religious. You said to Tim ” really” Its a surprise to you because you have gotten nothing but RC propaganda your whole life. Ya really. You said “what happened to the alternate church?” It was apostate. You belong to it. Its the roman Catholic church. Do you mean what happened to the true church of Jesus Christ administered by the Holy Spirit since its inception. It grew. And I suggest you read Tim’s posts, he documents it well. Here is a hint Bob, it was known for it’s apostolicity before the rise of Roman Catholicism, and by its Protestantism after the rise of RC. The true church has always protested and separated itself from that system, even thru the dark ages. We are not biding our time. I just gave you an answer. And we did come up with something. And as soon as you read it you’ll have your answer. Bob, taken your Roman glasses off , there was a thriving Christian church from its inception. it is the universal catholic church. But it wasn’t visible Roman Catholicism with it’s home office. That would be the false church. All God’s best to you, K
Bob, one more thing You said.” Your alternative history denies the Roman Catholic church, but it doesn’t say who the alternative is. ” Well first of all the history that Tim laid out doesn’t deny the Roman Catholic church. On the contrary, it includes the Roman Catholic church as the Apostasy prohesied in Thessalonians, Daniel, Revelation. The alternative to the Roman Apostasy was the true church of Jesus Christ. The true body of Christ. All those who have, are, and will assent to the true gospel. The elect.
Not that I really care, but I thought that Sungenis was a sede vacantist, and if so, why does he care if what JPII said was ex cathedra?
What a tiresome subject, the myth of man’s “authority,” “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.!”+
Acts 7:42; Romans 1:24.
+http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/macbeth_5_5.html
Soli Deo gloria!
I’m convinced that to take way that pillar of Popery and that central episcopate from a catholics life, they wouldn’t know what to do. Lost puppies. 2 Thessalonians 2 ” Let no one deceive you , for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so called god or object of worship, so he takes his place in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.” For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work” That is the one who whose coming is in accord the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders.” For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.” Father you know your chosen from the beginning for salvation thru sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the Truth. Lift the delusion so that our dear friends may see their idols, the error of their ways, and worship you in Sprit and truth thru trusting in Christ alone for their salvation. Amen
TIM–
You’re not getting what I am asking you. After Damasas 1, who and where was the “alternative church”? You claim Rome wasn’t it. Then who was? You claim “the gates of Hell” prevailed against the Roman Catholic Church. I want to know the name of the church that Jesus promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against. What did the members of this church call themselves?
Bob, what were they called at Nicaea? What was the strong, central episcopate that protected the church from error at Nicaea?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, its a myth to say the visible church was unified in the first 1000 years of the church. There was the 5th century school of Antioch school of Alexandria schism, Nestorianism, the Roman Orthodox divide in 1048. Roman apologist who say that all was guarded under a central episcopate smoking peyote as we say in Phoenix. The Roman Catholic church was absolutely disorganized, steeped in idolatry, with few defined scriptural doctrines. Trent was a panic reflex to the great Reformed confession which were unified and defined. Yet Catholics like Bob, Jim, CK, continue to repeat Roman propaganda. It may take more faith to believe in Romanism than Jesus Christ. Lol. K
Paul says ” built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ himself the Chief cornerstone.” Eph. 2:20. Calvin said the pretence of succesion is futile , if succeding generations do not keep the truth of Christ ( which was handed down to them by their fathers) safe and whole, continuing to live by it. In the place of the Lords supper, they placed an awful sacriledge and the worship of God is distorted by a mass of intolerable supperstitions. ” institutes. ” The visible church ” whereever the Word of God is sincerely preached and listened to, and the sacraments are administered according to Christ’ institution. Institutes. Calvin
Tim–
So you dodge the question again. I will assume, then, that the Church that Jesus Christ founded was in full communion with the Bishop of Rome between Damasas 1 and the Eastern Schism of 1053 AD– roughly 700 years.
Unless you can prove otherwise, then I can assume all Christians during that time recognized the central authority of the Papacy, adored the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and prayed for intercession through the saints.
Unless, of course, you can identify those who didn’t…..?
Bob,
I’m really just trying to figure out who you think was the strong central episcopate during Nicaea in 323 A.D.. Who was it? Clearly you think there was one, but it is not at all clear to me who you think it was. Who was the strong central episcopate that preserved the purity of the church at the Council of Nicaea in 323 AD? Was it Rome? If it was Rome, what is your proof? If not who was it? If it wasn’t Rome how is it possible that the purity of the church was preserved without a strong central episcopate?
Can you answer that question?
Thanks,
Tim
Bob – nice simple straight forward question. All they can do is muddy the water and misdirect in the hope that the subject gets changed. They try to rewrite history, use quotes out of context, etc… Something is terribly wrong when a view or belief holds water only when using these tactics.
CK, if you really want to see rewritten history. Pick up a one of the 1000 revised list of Popes and the forged copy of The donation of Constantine. Now that will be a scream. Lol
Can you point me to those 1000 revised lists? Also, do you have any thoughts on Bob’s very simple question? I don’t know is an acceptable answer.
CK, Id be happy to point you to those revised lists of Popes. Strap in, it reads like a bad movie, Popes, Anipopes, 3 Popes at the same time in different countries claiming true succesion. Popes killing other Popes. You know, that central episcopate that hels everything together like your friend Bob said happened. Lets make a deal, we have asked you to identify the antichrist in Thessalonians 2 who puts himself up as God in the church, that was to come shortly. Hint, he calls himself Holy Father likes his golden ring kissed. You tell us who that is and we will give you the name of the church that the gates of hell didnt prevail against. I’ll start, although I answered it a couple posts ago. Its called the church of Christ, all those who posses true religion. Calvin gives a great defenition. Ill wait for your answer to our question. If you know Bob, email each other, see what you come up with. God bless.
Btw Kevin that’s also called muddying the waters. Forget documents blah blah blah has no impact on Bob’s request.
“Forged” not forget
CK, I forgot to tell you where you can find those many Pope lists . Google. Thanks K.
My answer to your question is I don’t know who the antichrist is.
The Church of Christ? The one listed in the yellow pages? I don’t think they even claim to have been around back then.
CK, no the one listed in heaven, the book of life. Its been around since before the foundation of the world. Epessians 1:4 ” just as he chose us befor the foundationof the world to be holy and blameless before Him, in love he predestined us to the adpotion as sons thru the Jesus Christ, according to the kind intention of his will.” Thank God for the Reformed confessions that returned us to the assurance the bible offers, Romans 5:1, 1 John 5:13, Romans 8:1. God bless
CK, have you read Tim’s article The rise of Roman Catholicism? Its excellent, I hope you will. K
TIM–
And still you dodge my question!
You said “I’m really just trying to figure out who you think was the strong central episcopate during Nicaea in 323 A.D.. Who was it? Clearly you think there was one, but it is not at all clear to me who you think it was. ”
If you will recall, this all started with:
WALT asked: “If the RCC did not exist in the first 3 centuries, what happened?”
And I answered:
“The Church struggled with:
Jewish persecution and subsequent divorce from its Judaic roots.
Roman persecution.
Diverse beliefs after the Apostolic age.
The Nicolaitans and other heresies were rampant:
GNOSTICISM–
QUARTODECIMANISM–
MONTANISM–
MONARCHIANISM–
“PURITANISM”– Donatists
ARIANISM–
MONOPHYSITISM–
PELAGIANISM–
Without a strong central episcopate, who knows what would have happened to the Church?”
And then I recalled what you said:
Tim said: “Because Rome rejected the counsel of God and has sought its own revelation apart from God’s Word, God has cursed them and made their light darkness, so that when the seek for light they are confounded in their quest. While they “look for light,” God “make[s] it gross darkness.”
And then I said:
“Look’s like in the first centuries without the RCC, the Church was really dark all over until a central authority arose to unite doctrine. I wonder who that authority was?”
Nowhere did I say anything about nor did I infer the Council of Nicaea in 323 AD. You were the one who came up with that right out of left field.
And now you ask me “Who was it? Clearly you think there was one, but it is not at all clear to me who you think it was. Can you answer that question?”
I believe as you say, there was none. The Church was splintered and heresies were a real problem that was tearing the Church apart–the Arians the most problematic. It’s interesting that you bring up the Council of Nicaea. That time in history was the end of the Roman persecution of Christianity. Christians could now come out of hiding in the catacombs. They could finally shout from the rooftops without being arrested. They could carry a pix with the blessed sacrament on their person and not be “caught red-handed with evidence of cannibalism” and be prosecuted. They could start to build churchs in public view. They didn’t have to meet in secret and run and hide from the authorities. The Council of Nicaea was when the Arian heresy was finally condemned. The united front against all heresies was beginning to take shape with a strong central episcopate. What better place than the Chair of Peter.
Now answer my question, Tim. If it wasn’t the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against, then who was it? What did the members of this church call themselves?
Bob, you must have missed my post to you. Thinkning there was u nity in the visible church in the first 1000 years is a myth. Look up the school of Antioch versus the school of Alexandria, Nestorianism, Or the Roman / Orthodox schism in 1048. And many others, among many others. Roman apologists who try to say otherwise are flat wrong. Sorry Bob, central episcopate brought apostasy.
Bob, just remember with the coming of the monarchial episcopate that you think brought song and kunbaya brought the greatest killing institution in History, the greatest persecution of Christians in History, the soaring of Roman church wealth by the impoverishment of Italian and European peasants. Selling of Christ’s merits and taking that selling into Purgatory. The most corrupt institution in history by far. All at the hands of the Pope and his religion. Claiming the power of both swords, religious and civil, the Pope declared himself king of the world, calming to be God. You said to Tim :” looks like the first centuries without the RCC was dark” Not nearly as dark as the centuries after the coming of antichrist. It was antichrist that they beheld on that Papal throne. We need to buy you and CK a different history book. One that has real history in it. What is hilarious Bob, is you want to chide Tim for the darkness of the church before the arrival of your idol the Pope, and then you want to say with that arrival came peace and tranquility in the visible church. It was dark. But a book called ” The Pope and the council” and you will retract everything you have said here. I’ll be happy to pay for it. God bless.
Ding Dong,
“the impoverishment of Italian … peasants.”
Is that why they turned to crime?
Bob, I may have misunderstood you. On 2014/11/03 at 8:56 pm you wrote,
But on 2014/11/02 at 5:02 pm you wrote,
Since 325 A.D. was clearly a reference to Nicea, I understood you to be asking, “If it wasn’t Rome who governed the church from Nicea to the present, then who was it?” I don’t think my question is out of left field, since, by your question, you implied that either Rome was governing the church from Nicea onward, or someone else was, and if that is what you were implying, my question is, “Do you really believe that Rome was governing the church from Nicea onward.” What is your proof that the Roman Catholic Church was governing the church at Nicea.
The reason this matters is that Rome knows very well how important it is to have a strong central episcopate in the Nicene and ante-Nicene era, but they can’t find one. So it must be presumed, and that is why Rome is so heavily invested in perpetuating the myth of 1500 years of Roman Primacy—from the earliest days of the church.
The cracks in the myth begin to appear on closer inspection. Roman Catholicism claims that Eucharistic Adoration is central to the identity and liturgy of the church, and that papal infallibility is necessary for the preservation of the church, and that a strong central episcopate is necessary for its purity, and that infallible councils are necessary so we can have a bible. When you examine these claims, you find huge gaps during which, if Roman Claims are true, the church cannot possibly have existed:
Before 1870, Roman Catholics weren’t even aware of papal infallibility (see Keenan’s catechism in which it is denied as a Protestant invention). How did the church go 1800 years without papal infallibility?
Before 1546, there was not an infallible canon of the Scriptures. How did the church go 1500 years without a bible?
Before the late 11th century, there is no evidence of Eucharistic Adoration, something that is central to the identity and liturgy of the church. How did the church go 1000 years without eucharistic adoration.
Before the late 4th century, nobody was aware that it was necessary to have a strong central episcopate to govern the church, but as Nicea clearly shows, it is possible for the church to maintain purity without one. How did the church go 300 years without a strong central episcopate.
In short, if we need an infallible pope, an infallible canon, eucharistic adoration and a strong central episcopate for the church to even exist, then the church managed without all of those things for centuries and sometimes millennia.
Rome makes all kinds of excuses for these gaps, like, “Clement helped the Corinthians resolve a dispute,” and “The synod of Rome declared a canon,” or “Bishops set the bread aside to be shared with other parishes,” or “Peter established the seat of the church at Rome,” etc…. But all of these can be refuted or contextualized with countervailing evidence.
Sure, Clement helped the Corinthians resolve a dispute. But Cyprian of Carthage helped settle a controversy caused by the metropolitan of Rome.
Sure, the council of Rome established a canon, but Roman Catholics know very well that Rome was a regional council and regional councils are not infallible.
Sure, Bishops set aside bread to share with others, but that hardly counts as adoration.
Sure, some fathers say Peter went to Rome, but some have him arriving in Rome in the reign of Nero, not 25 years earlier.
I point all this out because there is tremendous evidence that Roman Catholicism did not exist until the end of the 4th century, so roman Catholicism cannot possibly claim credit for stabilizing and preserving the church at the time of Nicea, and yet the church was stablized and preserved.
So you ask, “If the strong, central episcopate wasn’t Rome, who was the strong central episcopate?” and I am asking you, “Why do you think there had to be one?” Nicea clearly shows that a strong central episcopate is not necessary.
This conversation is like Copernicus saying “the Sun doesn’t revolve around the earth,” and someone attempting to refute him by saying, “Then if it doesn’t revolve around the earth, what planet does the sun orbit?,” and Copernicus says, “I think you may be asking the wrong question.” The real question is not “If not earth, then which planet does the sun orbit?”. The real question is, “Does the sun orbit any planet at all?”
So your question is, “If the strong, central episcopate wasn’t Rome, who was the strong central episcopate?”, and I’m saying that’s the wrong question. What makes you think a strong central episcopate is even necessary? If so, how did the church stay pure at Nicea without one?
I’m hardly dodging your question. I’m saying it’s the wrong question.
Thanks,
Tim
Sorry, my bad. When I was referencing 325 AD I meant Damasus 1. I wasn’t intending to reference the Council of Nicaea. I guess the date should have been 366 AD.
Wow Kevin! You leave me speechless. I am dumbstruck by your uncanny ability to just blurt out your thoughts with such precise run-on sentences and misspellings and typos. Do you type with your feet? Sweetie, you need to slow down and proofread your text before you post it.
Anyway, since you are speaking for Tim, I notice you are dodging the question as well. So I will ask you:
If it wasn’t the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against, then who was it? What did the members of this church call themselves? It’s a legitimate question that demands an answer.
Bob, ” If it wasn’t the Roman Catholic that Jesus promised the gates of Hell wouldn’t prevail against, then who was it. What did the members of this church call themselves? Ok lets take this in a few parts. You stated correctly that the RC wasn’t the church that Jesus promised the gates of Hell wouldn’t prevail against. You are correct on this, and I’m glad you understand this. The last question is they called themselves believers, Christians. Paul uses church as a metaphor for body of Christ. I don’t believe scripture teaches a universal visible church with a home office. I believe we see Christ’s church throughout history in many nations, many peoples, wherever the word was preached sincerely and listened to, and the sacraments are administered according to Christ’s institution. I do believe in visible churches, just not a universal one. I see a church in Jerusalem before Rome, one in Corinth, Colassae, etc. Jesus addresses many visible churches in Revelation. You see true unity Bob comes through the true gospel of Christ. And you seriously need a church history class. Its a myth to think there was unity in the visible church in the first 1000 years. Like I said go read about the late 5th century schism between the school of Antioch and the school of Alexandria, Nestorianism. Or the schism in 1048 between Rome and the Orthodox church. Like i said, as we say in Phoenix, Roman apologists are smoking peyote if they think when the monarchial episcopate came everybody was holding hands and singing kumbaya. Nothing’s going to convince you Bob, you are a “devout Catholic.” Only God can change your heart.
Bob, you did ask for a name of the true church. The Elect! sweet dreams! God bless
Bozo,
“The last question is they called themselves believers, Christians.”
First, the called themselves followers of the Way. Then, from the time of Ignatius, the called themselves “Catholics”
“Paul uses church as a metaphor for body of Christ.”
Yeah, and Jesus called the Church His Kingdom ( Mt 16 ) when He set up Peter’s visible office.
” I don’t believe scripture teaches a universal visible church with a home office. ”
Tell me, how does one get thrown out of an invisible church?
Why didn’t the adulterous Corinthian just say that Paul was preaching Law and works righteousness. Why didn’t the guy just start his own church?
Is everyone in Phoenix a member of Bethany Bible ? Do they all say what you say about peyote?
Didn’t think so. Speak for your self.
Jim, please read carefully. I said I don’t believe the scripture teaches a universal visible church. I believe it teaches visible churches, just not universal visible church with a home office, especially where the claimant calls himself God, king of the world, and wears a 30000 dollar diamond hat and gets his feet kissed. Peter called himself ” a fellow elder” We have come a long way baby. Remember the Virginia Slim add. Hope you well buddy. K
The 50s were full of antichrists! Most men and women wore hats! Great analysis!!!
CK, ya but they never call themselve God, and claimed the power of both swords, civil, and religious. And I didnt see any people getting their feet kissed. Peter called himself a fellow elder, and when a man bowed to him, he told him to get up, he was just a man like him. My wife Leni said to me the other night Catholicism is egoism, its all about ego. They call themselves devout. Luther called it the theolgy of glory. CK, can I suggest ” on Christian freedom” by Luther. You can read it on google. Its awesome. CK, you didnt answer my question, have you read Tim’s article ” The rise of Roman Catholicism? Thx Blessings.
Popes call themselves God? I saw the Pope washing people’s feet. Does that make those peeps God?
CK, you are aware that he calls himself Holy Father, a name only reserved for God. He accepts the title head of the church, when Colossians 1 clearly teaches that Christ is the only head of the church. And you do understand he accepts the title of Vicar, usurping the place of the Holy Spirit. CK, do you ever sits and think about this stuff. For instance Peter called himself a fellow elder, hmm, and when a man bowed to him, he said get up I’m just a man. And you say you can’t identify antichrist. Have you ever read 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, ever? have you ever read Tim’s article The rise of roman catholicism? I have asked you that 3 times. Why won’t you answer? Its a simple yes or no? 2 Thessalonians 2 says there is a man who puts himself up in the church as God. Catholic doctrine says he is king of the world, God, infallible, and possesses the power of both swords civil, and religious. The Pope answers to none. He is the supreme earthly king. Have you ever read your confessions? I often wonder and shake my head.. A Catholic must assent to those doctrines to be saved. Blessings K
Tim, I was watching the Catholic channel last night. Dave Anders was on that woman’s show, the one where the blonde host lady always talks about Mary. The second part is on tonight. I guess he lives in Birmingham and was a Professing Christian at one point. Do you know him? But he went thru his whole journey to Rome. And it always is that whole thing, you know I knew there was more, and a fuller experience blah blah. I always chucle because the scripture teaches Christians are partakers of the divine nature ( fellowhip with Christ) and possess all things pertaining to life and godliness. I say to myself, what are you missing. But they go on with tgere was something missing and you know that whole I got it cooperating with grace thru the sacraments. And Dave Anders said what Catholics always say when they hammer on imputation. He said well Protestants believe God justifies ungodly people by just exchanging His righteouness for your sin, instead os somebody really having to become righteous in themselves. And I’m thinking to myself Romans 4:5, 2Cor 5:21, Im thinking thats the good news, he lived the law in our place and fulfilled all righteouness. He did for us what we couldnt do for ourselves. Im thinking what would make you want to trade this for a mode of earning your salvation. Then it hit me, the Theology of glory. People go between self condemnation and self righteousness inside them. And if they have controll of their salvation they feel better. And yet the message from Jesus to the rich young ruler was you cant do anything to get in, only with God all things are possible. Is there a better message Tim than God justifies the ungodly. It comes down to how we see ouselves and how we see God. You have to know how lost you are before you understand salvation is from the Lord. Tim, thanks for indulging me this long post. God bless.
Kevin your ignorance of catholisism is amazing.
Mr Sola Scriptura could you give me chapter and verse where Holy Father is only reserved for God? This is a very simple request. I smell man made tradition. I just need chapter and verse not a dissertation.
I read 2Thes 2 and the burning in my bosom said this is referencing Luther and Calvin! I even used a protestant bible. Which church can we go to clear this up?
CK, the name Holy Father is used once in all of scripture to descrode Almighty God. Jesus said let no man be called father, let alone Holy Father. Heck, their all called father. The better question is how could you ever submit to a mere sinner like ourselves who usurps the titles reserved for God? Then again you pray to a woman who salled herself a sinner and the slave of the Lord. CK, I asked 5 times, have you read Tim’s article ” the rise of Roman Catholicism” simple yes or no. So you are saying tha Luther and Calvin were the heirarchial leader that put himself up in the church as God, and the Pope who has the power of both swords, civil and religious, claims infallibility, and takes the names of the Trinity isnt him. OK. Do me a favor, today read 2 Thessalonians 2:11. Blessings
I see you couldn’t give chapter and verse. I’ll chalk your claim to man made tradition. Call no man your father, really? Are you one of those that wants to start referring to mother and father as parent one and two because calling your male parent father is a sin? Btw you forgot about calling no one teacher. Sola Scritura indeed.
I haven’t read Tim’s article because his goal is to prove Catholicism is a cult at the expense of ignoring facts that go against his pre determined answer.
Mathew 23:9
What about teacher?
You have several books that refer to humans as father and teachers which goes against the word of God. This means they are not inspired.
“For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not MANY FATHERS: for in Christ Jesus I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU [i.e. become your FATHER] through the gospel….
“For this cause have I sent unto you TIMOTHY, WHO IS MY BELOVED SON, and faithful in the Lord…” (1 Cor 4:15,17 KJV)
“…as a SON [Timothy] with the FATHER [Paul], he hath served with me in the gospel” (Phil 2:22 KJV)
“we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a FATHER doth his children” (1 Thess 2:11 KJV)
“Look unto ABRAHAM YOUR FATHER, and unto Sarah that bare you: For I called him alone, and blessed him and increased him.” (Isaiah 51:2 KJV)
What about that commandment using that unbiblical word? “honor (I don’t want to commit a sin so I won’t use the word) your male parent and mother”?
TIM–
You said; “So your question is “If the strong, central episcopate wasn’t Rome, who was the strong central episcopate?”, and I’m saying that’s the wrong question. What makes you think a strong central episcopate is even necessary? If so, how did the church stay pure at Nicea without one?
I’m hardly dodging your question. I’m saying it’s the wrong question.”
Your dodging is putting you at a disadvantage. You say my question is “If the strong, central episcopate wasn’t Rome, who was the strong central episcopate?” It most certainly is the wrong question because I didn’t ask it. I will copy and paste it one more time for you:
If it wasn’t the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against, then who was it? What did the members of this church call themselves?
Kevin says they called themselves maybe the Church of Jerusalem, or Church of Antioch, or Church of Alexandria.
What say you, Tim Kauffman?
Bob, you said to me,
Here is you series of inquiries: On November 1, you wrote:
I believe I can be forgiven for taking this to mean that you clearly believe that Rome was the strong central episcopate that arose to unite doctrine. Then, the next day, you wrote,
Because you have already defined “strong, central episcopate” as that which “unites doctrine,” your second question reduces to “If Rome was not that ‘strong central episcopate’ then who was it?” So yes, you did ask it. You also asked a second question, this from November 3:
Your second question does not change the fact that you asked the first. Are you withdrawing the first question? In any case, the two questions are not identical but they are related. The first is “If Rome was not that strong central episcopate, then who was?” and I’m asking you again, why do you assume one was necessary? You clearly believe that the church could unite on doctrine at Nicea—so at Nicea who was the strong, central episcopate?
Your second question presumes the existence of the Roman Catholic Church at the time Jesus made his promise that the gates of hell would not prevail.
The early church did not believe that Rome was the apostolic see or the object of Christ’s promise, as evidenced from Fermilion’s 256 A.D. letter from Firmilian to Cyprian of Carthage, in which it is alleged that the Roman episcopate had wandered off the reservation:
Since the strong central Roman “Petrine” episcopate upon which Christ is alleged to have built his church did not exist until the end of the 4th century, it is impossible that Christ was promising that the gates of hell would not prevail against Roman Catholicism. And because Roman Catholicism gets its authority from the Serpent and in fact teaches doctrines of demons, it is clear that, according to Christ’s promise, Roman Catholicism can in no way prevail against his Church.
You asked (yes, indeed you did) “If Rome is not that strong central episcopate, then who is?” and I repeat, “You are asking the wrong question.” You ask what we are called? We are called Christians and Christians have been standing against the Church of Rome since its ungodly inception in the latter part of the 4th century. You ask where our “strong central episcopate is” and I ask you why you think one is necessary?
Thanks,
Tim
Bob, you misrepresent what I said, and I don’t appreciate it. I said they called themselves Christians. The “catholic” church has been superintended by God by the work of the Spirit. You need names, put the “Elect” on it. And I didn’t say ” maybe the church of Jerusalem etc” I said God’s visible church is made up of many people in many countries. I gave examples of the visible church. Jerusalem, Corinth, Philippi, etc. You want me to list you every Christian denomination through history that beloved to Christ’s church. It is you who is imposing Home office visible Roman Catholic church as Christ’s church who the gates of hell doesn’t prevail against. We have a names for that visible church, Apostate, false, antichrist. Now you addressed Tim and I don’t want to step in your conversation with him. But you misrepresented what I said and you addressed me, Tim, and Walt on this matter. You imply that Rome was governing the church since Nicea, and it was without problems. I merely pointed out to you that its a myth to think there were no issues in the church. I gave you an example in the 5th century and the 11th century. 2 big ones. And its a myth to think that the true church of Christ was being managed out of Babylon ( your home office) and that its doctrines were those of the current Roman church. I asked CK if she reads Tim’s articles, and she said no. Am I assume that you haven’t read his articles either. God bless Bob.
Kevin said – Bob, you misrepresent what I said, and I don’t appreciate it.
Me – irony abounds!
Yeah, I know. Don’t ya hate when that happens?
CK Bob, Ck said ” I have not read Tim’s article because his goal is to show Catholicism is a false church and is ignoring the facts.” What were you expecting when you came. This site is here to show Roman Catholicism is a false church by establishing the facts. But if you wont read his article ” The rise of Roman Catholicism ” how can you know his facts? I believe you both are here because Roman Catholicism is empty. And the reason you dont read his article is because you are afraid of what you will find, the truth. But the truth will set you free. Im praying for both of you that you can understand 2 Thessalonians 2:11, and that God will show you the errors of a false church. You have come to the right place. Open your heart to the truth of God’s word so you can be setvfree from sacramentalism as a way of gaining your acceptance before God. There is only one way in to. The kingdom of God, and thats by faith alone in Christ alone. God bless and have a blessed day. K
Ck and Bob, I wanted to leave you with one scripture today where Paul sums the gospel up. Romans 1:16,17 ” for I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who BELIEVES, to the Jew first and also to the greek. For in it “the righteousness” of God is revealed from faith first to last, as it is written the righteous shall live by faith. Go is calling all men today to repent of sacramentalism as a way of attaing salvation, and to turn to Him by believing the gospel, for it the power of God for salvation to all who believe. K
Tim, I wanted to share with your readers a couple neat things I read today. Justification was Augustine’s no to Pelagius and Luther’s no to sacramentalism. Simultaneously justified and glorified. Thanks Kevin
TIM–
You finally answered: “We are called Christians and Christians have been standing against the Church of Rome since its ungodly inception in the latter part of the 4th century.”
So, in the 5th through, let’s say the 8th century, what denomination did “Christians” celebrate communion with?
Where were they located? Jerusalem? Antioch? Alexandria? Nicaea? Constantinople? Odessa? Germany? Switzerland? Huntsville, Alabama?
Did they have ordained priests?
Who ordained them?
Did they practice open or closed communion?
Did they celebrate communion daily or just on Sunday or once a month? Or not at all?
Did they have a copy of the Scriptures for each congregation?
Who scribed those Scriptures for them (the printing press had not been invented yet) ?
Were they scribed in Greek or Latin or some other language?
Did they name their congregations something else besides Catholic?
Do you, Tim Kauffman, have authentic documentation that can answer these questions?
I know this is a lot to ask, but I am trying to determine if you are just blowing smoke or if their really is evidence of these Christians so that I too may read the source documents of your claim. Please try to answer each question.
Thanks.
BOB
P. S. KEVIN–
Please let Tim speak for himself on this, ok?
Bob,
You came to the right place. Because I blog at my own pace and on my own schedule, you will have to wait for your specific answers. However, I will say this: your approach is precisely why many Protestants are fooled into following Antichrist—”Because Roman Catholicism has been historically understood to be the true church, and we know the true church would never lie to us, then Roman Catholicism must be telling the truth when it says it is the true church.” I hope you can see the fundamental logical flaw in that line of reasoning. Antichrist doesn’t recruit its followers by convincing people that he is lying. He recruits followers by deceiving them into thinking he’s telling the truth. That’s why Paul warns of his power, signs and lying wonders: “whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders” (2 Thessalonians 2:9).
I know that I am asking you to choose between what you feel is your accurate interpretation of history based on what you believe to be facts, and the Apostles and Prophets who warned of precisely the monstrosity that Roman Catholicism is and has been since its inception in the 4th century. I am willing to stipulate that those who recognize Roman Catholicism as Antichrist are few and far between, and further that those who recognize that Antichrist rose at the end of the 4th Century are rarer still—perhaps I am the only one. Copernicus, too, was singular in his rejection of the Ptolemaic system. He was no less right for his singularity, and Ptolemy was no less wrong for his popularity and antiquity.
Although the Reformers varied in their thinking about when Rome apostasized, they nevertheless were right on the true Church, and right on Antichrist. The Westminster Divines wrote,
You say I am blowing smoke. Very well. “Eppur si muove.”
Thanks,
Tim
TIM says: “You say I am blowing smoke. Very well.”
No, what I said was, and I’ll cut and paste it here:
“I am trying to determine if you are just blowing smoke or if their really is evidence…”
Very well. Uderz w stół, a nożyce się odezwą.
TIM–
The only reason I think there is a need for a strong central episcopate is to unify doctrine. Does your congregation practice closed communion or open communion? Why?
Bob, thank you. You wrote, “The only reason I think there is a need for a strong central episcopate is to unify doctrine.” This is why I have been asking you to identify the strong central episcopate at Nicea where doctrine was unified. Who was it? If it was Rome, what is your proof?
Thanks,
Tim
Bob, I haven’t answered for Tim. Tim does just fine on his own. I answered for myself when you misrepresent my statements. Seems like you think if you join the right church your golden. You might want to try the right gospel, this way you’ll be in the Christ’s right church whatever you call it. If your looking for Priests, and daily eucharist adoration, another language, and a cool name, stay where you are. Let CK answer for himself. God bless you.
KEVIN–
You said: “Seems like you think if you join the right church your golden. You might want to try the right gospel, this way you’ll be in the Christ’s right church whatever you call it.”
I fellowship with these people who do this:
http://www.revneal.org/communionlit1.html
Remember, Kevin, we have the same gospel as you. We just understand it better than you.
Bob, with all due respect, in my many months of discourse with you, thru your sarcasm and seriousness, you have been crystal clear that your works play a part in your pardon. Unfortunately, that is the false gospel that Paul is talking about in Galatians 1:9. In fact the gospel you believe is the Roman Catholic gospel and it can be no other false gospel that the one that Paul is talking about in Galatians 1:9. We are to not seek our justification in our works or obedience in any way. You have told me that works play a part in your final pardon. But this is what the Apostle Paul said ” not of works”” not that of yourselves” ” to the one who does not work but believe” ” not according to our works” “if it is by works it is no longer by grace” Justification was Augustine’s no to Pelagious and Luther’s no to sacramentalism. I hope you don’t plan on putting a picture up of a Methodist minister when you stand before God like you just did for me, that won’t cut it. Romans 4:16 tells a Roman Catholic and all those who would seek pardon by their being, doing, working, loving, that if you want to be saved by grace alone, it will have to be by faith alone. I pray nothing but God’s truth for you. And I hope you and CK will read Tim’s article ” The Rise of Roman Catholicism” I pray that every member of the RC could have a copy of that article. God bless Bob. K
TIM–
You said: ” I have been asking you to identify the strong central episcopate at Nicea where doctrine was unified. Who was it? If it was Rome, what is your proof?”
The First Council of Nicaea (/naɪˈsiːə/; Greek: Νίκαια [ˈni:kaɪja]) was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. This first ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.
Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the nature of the Son of God and his relationship to God the Father, the construction of the first part of the Creed of Nicaea, establishing uniform observance of the date of Easter, and promulgation of early canon law.
The First Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical council of the Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent local and regional councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy—the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.
Derived from Greek (Ancient Greek: οἰκουμένη oikoumenē “the inhabited earth”), “ecumenical” means “worldwide” but generally is assumed to be limited to the known inhabited Earth, and at this time in history is synonymous with the Roman Empire; the earliest extant uses of the term for a council are Eusebius’ Life of Constantine around 338, which states “he convoked an Ecumenical Council” and the Letter in 382 to Pope Damasus I and the Latin bishops from the First Council of Constantinople.
Is this the one you refer? If it is, then why do YOU think Constantine called this council?
Bob,
Thank you. I know why Constantine called the council. I wasn’t asking why it was called. I’m asking who you think was the strong central episcopate.
Thanks,
Tim
KEVIN–
You said: ” I hope you don’t plan on putting a picture up of a Methodist minister when you stand before God like you just did for me, that won’t cut it.”
Boy, I sure am glad that you ain’t God! Did you read the words, or did you just look at the pictures? Does Bethany Bible have closed communion or open communion?
I’ll pray for you, too.
The bible churches I have attended, Grace Community church in Los Angeles, Scottsdale Bible church, Bethany Bible have encouraged professing believers to participate in communion, and for unbelievers not to. Bob, you said ” did you read the words to the Methodist post you provided.” Yes I did. But so what. God isn’t going to judge you or acquit you based on how a Methodist church doctrinal statement reads. Here is a question for Bob, does your “obedience to love” your works play in to your pardon before God. Simple test. If you say, no Kevin my final justification and salvation are dependent on the imputed righteousness of Christ that comes by faith alone in Christ alone and not in anything I do , then you believe the gospel of Scripture. If you yes Kevin, my final pardon and acceptance before God will be based on my obedience, works, “obedience to love” then you don’t believe the gospel of Scripture. Saying to me I fellowship with the people that do this, is like saying going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger. You say you have the same gospel as me. No, you don’t, thats the whole point. You think if you keep telling yourself that it will come true. Not. We believe different gospels. You say you understand it better than me. You believe a false gospel Bob, just like CK. If you take one thing away from this site, understand that to worship the bread as Christ is blatant idolatry, and looking to your good works in nay way for your pardon before God is not the gospel. Always enjoy our back and forth. God Bless.
Bob, I waiting for you to answer Tim’s question. Let me give you a hint to the right answer. No a central monarchial Episcopate was not necessary at Nicaea to have doctrinal unity. Why? Because the church of Christ was superintended by the Spirit. And thru the collegiality of Bishop’s Christ’s church was to be administered. The Word( word) guaranteed that the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against Christ’s church, not some self claimed infallible king pretending to guard doctrine. In fact Bob what you will find is the greatest abuses in church history is the attempted elevation of a tradition and a monarchial episcopate and his curia to the status of God berated scripture. You can take that to the bank. K
God breathed not God berated. My writing is a scream. I’m a musician what do you expect. lol
Tim–
You said; “I know why Constantine called the council. I wasn’t asking why it was called. I’m asking who you think was the strong central episcopate.”
There was none! That is what I was getting at. The church was fractured into factions that were in disagreement with one another and falling into heresy. That is why Constantine called for the ecumenical council. “Constantine’s role regarding Nicaea was that of supreme civil leader and authority in the empire. As Emperor, the responsibility for maintaining civil order was his, and he sought that the Church be of one mind and at peace. In addressing the opening of the council, he ‘exhorted the Bishops to unanimity and concord’ and called on them to follow the Holy Scriptures with: ‘Let, then, all contentious disputation be discarded; and let us seek in the divinely-inspired word the solution of the questions at issue.'” And at that time, there wasn’t even a set canon of Christian writings to be included in that divinely-inspired word. Even that was still in dispute.
Now, why do YOU think Constantine called the council?
KEVIN–
You said: “Saying to me I fellowship with the people that do this, is like saying going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger.”
So you’re saying that fellowship with Catholics doesn’t make me an idolater? You’re FUNNY!
Bob, I am going to leave you to your discussion with Tim. You say you are Methodist and yet you defend Roman Catholicism more fervently than a Catholic. Im sorry I dont believe you. So I’ll recuse myself from further discussion.
KEVIN–
You said: “you defend Roman Catholicism more fervently than a Catholic”
That’s because I am taking the side of the underdog. Most Catholics don’t know how to defend their faith. I have never in all my days read so much concentrated anti-Catholic speech than on this sight. The Catholics that I know do not resemble anything like what you and Tim spout here. There is so much gall it seems to turn yellow at times. A person would think you all came from Belfast.
The reason I can defend Catholics on this sight is because I read their stuff. I asked my best friend one time why Catholics do all the things that are contrary to the Bible when it’s clear to me they use the same Bible. Don’t Catholics read their own Bible? Why do they do what they do? He couldn’t really tell me. And it got between us. More than I ever thought it would.
So I decided to find out for myself. I got a Catholic dictionary. I got a Catholic encyclopedia. I got a Catholic study bible. I have a complete set of the writings of the Anti-Nicaean Fathers. And I studied. And I visited. And I listened. He asked me to come to Mass with him. I’d never seen such ritual. No, I didn’t partake of the Eucharist. They have closed communion. (Methodists have open communion by the way.) I didn’t kneel, I didn’t genuflect, I didn’t bow or make the sign of the Cross. I sat their like the guest that I was and I took it all in. And you know what? It was a lot like the Sunday service in my church!
A lot of hymns being sung, prayers being said, Scriptures being read. They actually sing the psalms. There is a higher level of “audience participation” in their liturgy. I did notice, though, that their celebration of the Eucharist is almost identical to our Communion service–even down to the epiclesis. Yeah, their communion prayers are longer, but the liturgy is basically the same. I cannot condemn these people who love and praise Jesus the way they do.
Y’know, I have read Tim’s “Rise of Roman Catholicism”. Yes, Kevin, I really did. Along with some of his other blogs. And what I did also, is read the source documents he cites in them–in their entirety. I come away with a whole different meaning from them than Tim does. One thing I have noticed about when people cite documents for proof texts, if you see in the citation “…” that means they left something out; usually to make their point sound better. Most of the time that “…” left something out of the text that usually damages their case. Protestant apologists do it a lot when they cite the ECF’s or the Catholic Catechism. Jack Chick Ministries is really bad about that. So I read the source documents in their entirety to get the “rest of the story”.
So, I’m sorry you don’t believe me either. I guess I’m just more “kumbaya” than you.
Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.”Luk 9:50
Thanks, Bob. You wrote,
Based on this, may I assume that you believe that I abuse the ellipsis? Can you give me an example of how I have done this? Sometimes two connected thoughts are separated by paragraphs, even pages and chapters in the author being cited. To cite the entire section is cumbersome to the writer and for the reader. I will gladly correct any such abuse that you find. I know that the ellipsis can be, and is frequently, abused, which is why, as often as I can, I provide a link to the online source when I cite it in a blog.
Thanks,
Tim
” I asked my friend one time why Catholics do all these things contrary to the bible, they use the same bible, and he couldnt answer me.” The mormons down the street use the bible to. Now, you have come to a site of a former Catholic and expert in Roman church history who has documented the errors of Romanism, and you and CK havent read his article ” The rise of Roman Catholicism” and still arent convinced.
Yeah, but their bible includes the book of Mormon. You ever read that one? It’s a real trip! I can just picture Joseph Smith with his face in his hat.
Bob, I see in your post you said you have read Tim’ s article. What exactly do you disagree with?
Bob, lets be frank. This isnt about Tim’ quotations. They are impeccable. The issue is simple. You believe your works play apart in your pardon, and you worship the bread of the communion table. And we believe that is false religion. Its that simple. And you dont like it. Thats understandable. Bob, you think if you can find petty faults in Protestant citing of the Fathers you will justify your false gospel. Catholics think the Fathers were Catholic. But Tim has soundly shown that they are hardly support for Romanism. In fact he has shown opposite in baptism, Papacy, eucharistic worship, e etc. The rise of Roman Catholicism deals another fatal blow to the Roman religion. Protestants can have no peace with Rome. We must take the axe to the root. God bless
Bob said ” Thats because I’m taking the side of the underdog” Bob, has anyone told you yet that there are 1 billion Catholics. Its the wealthiest institution in the world. In fact, thats really how you get saved, you pay money to the church. They make you feel guilty for your sins, and offer some forgiveness for money. Underdog. Its a world dominating false religion, thats growing. And now because of JPII its alliance with Trinity hating Muslims is golden. JPII said Trinity hating Muslims were golden. Stay where you are and do the best you can. The new Roman Gospel. Sorry Bob, my heart is bleeding for Rome. We are the underdogs from a worldly perspective. But, in truth we have the wind of God on our side. 2 Corinthians 11:3 ” But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds have been led astray from the simplicity and devotion to Christ.” Sacramentalism is a departure from that simple trust in Christ alone. The Roman Mass is a departure from that simple devotion to Christ in faith. Auricular confession is a departure from that simple devotion to Christ in faith. And placing your faith in a church for your salvation is a departure from that simple trust in Christ. Frankly Bob, the thing that saddens me for Catholics is they spend there whole life defending a building with Peter’s name on it, instead of Defending the house built on the chief cornerstone, Christ, by faith alone, a building not made of hands, and one that will never fall down. Someday Bob, God will tear down Rome and destroy it, will you be found in there, or be found in Christ’s true church. I’m praying it will be the latter for you, Jim, and CK. Have a great day. Kevin
TIM–
You said: “Based on this, may I assume that you believe that I abuse the ellipsis? Can you give me an example of how I have done this?”
Let me answer you in the same way you answered me. “You came to the right place. Because I blog at my own pace and on my own schedule, you will have to wait for your specific answers.”
Instead of me going back and finding where you have done this in the past, I will wait for your new blogs to check your sources.
KEVIN–
You said: “Bob, lets be frank. This isnt about Tim’ quotations. They are impeccable.”
The quotations may be impeccable, but he doesn’t always use them fairly. If you really did your homework instead of blindly swallowing Tim’s stuff hook- line- and- sinker, you would see.
CK did a really good job of calling Tim on it on this very blog above. One thing about deception, it will be exposed sooner or later.
“CBOKB” said”, one thing about “deception”, it will be exposed sooner or later.” Thats exactly what is being done here in love, exposing Rome for what it is, a false Christianity, apostate, the idolatry which scripture warns us. 1 John warns us of Rome 21″ “Little children guard yourselves from idols.” We have one ACCESS to God, Jesus Christ, thru the Spirit by faith. We pray to God by faith through Christ alone. We are His body, and have no access to His physical body until He returns. The eucharistic tension between a world thats passing away, full of pain and sin and a new kingdom where Christ’s physical body is, and we eagerly await and hope for His return by faith. The church witnesses to the “good news” that there is forgiveness in no other name but Jesus, and by simply trusting in Him alone we have eternal life John 5:24, John 3;36 ” He who BELIEVES in the Son of Man HAS eternal life” I’m praying Bob that you will see Rome for what it is will worship, bread worship, and mixing one’s righteousness with the righteousness of christ as the formal cause of salvation. ” If it is by works it is no longer by grace.” I am so thankful to God that He has brought you to this site. And again I am praying that you will see 2 Thessalonians 2:11. And yes Bob, I believe that a man who once was caught up in the idolatry of Catholicism might know it better than most. All the best. K
KEVIN–
You said: “I’m praying Bob that you will see Rome for what it is will worship, bread worship, and mixing one’s righteousness with the righteousness of christ as the formal cause of salvation.”
And I am praying, Kevin, that the scales are removed from your eyes so that you may see that you are mislead by Satan into thinking the way you do towards the other members from a different part of the Body of Christ.
Bob, if you haven’t yet heard it from Tim, let me tell you, i don’t consider Roman Catholics brothers and sisters in Christ. And I don’t consider Rome to be a part of the body of Christ. It is a false church with a false gospel. And I think, and many Protestants would agree, that the worst thing that Protestant leaders have ever done is things like ECT, Evangelicals and Catholics together. A bunch of so called leaders, most of them evangelists, met in a room and redeemed hundreds of millions of people that day without leaving the room. As if because they say they are Christians they are. Only MacArthur, Sproul, and Horton abstained from signing that document. We should be evangelizing Catholics, so that they might believe the gospel of the bible. Catholics are dead right about the unity of Christ’s church, but they are dead wrong if they think that unity means anything with a false gospel. When you deny the gospel of Christ, and I think we can see from Tim’s article this i what happened with ” The rise of Roman Catholicism” Protestants forget our confessions say the Papacy is the Antichrist. All of them, WCF, Baptist, etc. Spurgeon said we can have no peace with Rome and they can have no peace with us. He said this War. We love their people, but we hate their doctrines as the doctrines of demons. God bless
Kevin,
” i don’t consider Roman Catholics brothers and sisters in Christ. ”
Oh, boo hoo! Boo hoo! Kevin doesn’t want to be our brother. Boo hoo!
Kevin said – “This site is here to show Roman Catholicism is a false church by establishing the facts.”
Me – Tim is very clear about the purpose of his blog and I applaud him for being up front. He’s not honest about establishing the “facts” though. Many of his facts are established by using quotes out of context, by omission, fantasy, and flat out misreprenting Catholic teaching. You don’t see this because you use the same methods.
CK, you told me you didn’t even read his article, any yet you come to all those conclusions. Hmm. That is what every Catholic alleges, we misunderstand Catholic teaching. CK, Tim, Eric W, Walt are smart guys who were Roman Catholics. All the Reformers were Roman Catholic Priests. They understood it just fine. You know the other option is Roman Catholic doctrine is the antithesis of Christianity and Scripture. Let me show you what I mean. RC says one’s works contribute to their pardon. Here are statements from Trent ” to the one who works well to the end” as a reward to their merits and good works” who truly merit eternal life” ” converted to their own justification” Now CK, once again here is what the Apostle Paul said ” to the ungodly one who does not work but believes” ” not according to works” ” not that of yourselves” ‘ not according to works” ” if it is by grace it is NO longer by works” None of our doing, being, loving can be the cause of our justification before God. They can only be for our neighbor. This is OPPOSITE of Catholic teaching. In Rome’s sacramental salvation you do and God gives you grace= law. In Christianity God gives us grace and we do=gospel. The tail doesn’t wag the dog, the Dog wags the tail. And Romans 4:16 is perspicuous, that if a Catholic wants to be saved by grace alone it will have to have be by faith alone. ” For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be GUARANTEED to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of faith of Abraham, who is father of us all.” The first red flag that should go up for you is that you don’t have the guarantee of salvation in Rome. Listen CK, guys Tim and Walt had walk away from their identity and families in the Catholic church to follow Christ by faith alone. But thats what Jesus asks us to give up to be his disciple. He won’t allow us to smuggle our character into the work of God’s grace. He said to the rich young ruler who tried to bring his love, works resume with him, thinking he was missing one little thing, with man it is impossible, with God all things are possible. It can only be the righteousness of Christ that come thru faith alone, it can’t be a mix of our righteousness and His. The great hymn ” Paul was blameless in his works, said he was the Jew of Jews, Hebrew of Hebrews, and yet he wanted NOT to be found in that righteousness, but be found in HIM with the righteousness that come from God by faith. You said ” I thought it is by faith alone” Ephesians 2:8 for by grace you have been saved by faith, and not that of yourselves, it is a GIFT of God, not a result of works.” CK your church teaches the opposite of this. Can it be any clearer. Salvation is a gift, not a reward to your merits and good works like Trent says. There was a good reason for the Reformation. They saved the Apostles and the early church from the hair splitting academics who perverted the gospel. And the dismantled the ecclesiastical machinery that developed in the church that was mostly human in origin and content. I think we have exhausted this. There is no more that i can say. God bless.
BOB – I read your link. It sounds very Catholic. Didn’t know Methodist liturgy was so similar to ours.
Kevin said – ” If it is by works it is no longer by grace.”
Me – I thought it was by faith alone! Btw, have you discarded all those epistles of straw that use the word “father” contra God’s command?
KEVIN SAID: ” I think we have exhausted this. There is no more that i can say. God bless.”
Thanks be to God!
CK–
You said: “Didn’t know Methodist liturgy was so similar to ours.”
Yeah, I know. It surprised me too.
Kevin,
“He said to the rich young ruler who tried to bring his love, works resume with him, thinking he was missing one little thing, …”
Actually, Jesus told the Rich Young Man to keep the commandments.
You guys twist the clear words of Christ to say,” You cannot keep the commandments. You are totally depraved. Let me keep the commandments in your place and impute it to your account,”
You guys say Jesus said the exact opposite of what He actually said,
Kevin said – CK, once again here is what the Apostle Paul said ” to the ungodly one who does not work but believes” ” not according to works” ” not that of yourselves” ‘ not according to works” ” if it is by grace it is NO longer by works”
Me – Paul also tells us: “For [God] will reward every man according to his works: to those who by perseverance in working good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. There will be . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality” (Rom. 2:6–11; cf. Gal. 6:6–10).
In the second century, the technical Latin term for “merit” was introduced as a synonym for the Greek word for “reward.” Thus merit and reward are two sides of the same coin.
Instead of random out of context quotes why don’t you provide those quotes in context?
Here’s what Trent says in context: “[N]one of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle [Paul] says, grace is no more grace” (Decree on Justification 8, citing Rom. 11:6).
Kevin do you have a problem with the paragraph above?
Below are some additional information from Catholic Answers. Go there to get your info instead hate catholics.com…
1.)The Catholic Church teaches only Christ is capable of meriting in the strict sense—mere man cannot (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2007). The most merit humans can have is condign—when, under the impetus of God’s grace, they perform acts which please him and which he has promised to reward (Rom. 2:6–11, Gal. 6:6–10). Thus God’s grace and his promise form the foundation for all human merit (CCC 2008).
2.)Virtually all of this is agreed to by Protestants, who recognize that, under the impetus of God’s grace, Christians do perform acts which are pleasing to God and which God has promised to reward, meaning that they fit the definition of merit. When faced with this, Protestants are forced to admit the truth of the Catholic position—although, contrary to Paul’s command (2 Tim. 2:14), they may still dispute the terminology.
Hey Kevin do you thing the guys at CTC dont understand what they left? Only former catholics are smart? I take it you were never a catholic 😉
CK, I say this to you respectfully, you dont understand what the scripture says about justification, and worse you have no idea what your church teaches. The cannon you cite talks about the works prior to Catholic initial justification. You dont merit your initiation into grace, but you merit your continuance in it thru the sacraments of the church and good works. Here is the canon I sited, ” Hence, to those who work well to the end, and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Jesus Christ, AND as a REWARD promised by God himself , to be faithfully given TOTHEIR GOOD WORKS and MERITS. FALSE GOSPEL. If God gave grace as a response to an action or an ability it wouldnt be a gift, but a reward. ALL of salvation from beginning to end is by faith alone in Christ alone. “The righteous shall live by faith. Please also read canon 4 and 24 among others that are a blatant violation of the gospel. We are justified by faith alone in Christ alone period, there arent instalments based on our doing, loving, works. Romans 11:6 is talking about all of salvation, and so is Ephesians 2:8. There is no initial justification and final justification based on works in scripture. No works in justification, not even grace enabled. Our works ( sanctification) is undergirded by our justification which is ever and always by faith. Those verses you cite arecdescriptive of a Christian, not perscriptive of justification. K
KEVIN:
You said: ” Hence, to those who work well to the end, and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Jesus Christ, AND as a REWARD promised by God himself , to be faithfully given TOTHEIR GOOD WORKS and MERITS. FALSE GOSPEL. If God gave grace as a response to an action or an ability it wouldnt be a gift, but a reward. ALL of salvation from beginning to end is by faith alone in Christ alone. ”
Gosh Kevin! What part of Paul’s words
“For [God] will REWARD every man according to HIS WORKS: to those who by perseverance in WORKING GOOD seek for glory and honor and immortality, HE WILL GIVE ETERNAL LIFE. There will be . . . glory and honor and peace for every one WHO DOES GOOD, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality” (Rom. 2:6–11; cf. Gal. 6:6–10)
do you not understand? Your calling what Paul said a false gospel???
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Clement of ROME ( 30-100) ” And we too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or WORKS which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by FAITH through which FROM THE BEGINNING, Almighty God justified all me; to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.” Seems like this Bishop of Rome understood Paul. Probably didn’t go around calling himself devout. He understood his utter spiritual bankruptcy and inability to be justified by his doing in anyway. ” The rise of Roman Catholicism ” is a must read for all Catholics. As we can see here with the apostasy came wholesale change. K
Bob, as I told CK. this will be my last post on this. To continue to go back and forth with this is senseless. To think that our citizenship in heaven is based in any way on our works being the meritorious cause before God as Rome teaches is to miss the gospel. The verse you cited is to be understood hypothetically ( for none can keep the law perfectly). Indeed we will stand before God and our works will be barren before him at judgment. But none of us can withstand the test of our works, or the law. Why? Isaiah 64:6 says” our deeds are as filthy rags.” The standard of the law is perfection, and none of us can keep it. How do we know this. Because in Romans 3 the next chapter Paul says 3:20 ” because by the works of the law NO flesh will be justified. for thru the law comes the knowledge of sin.” Rome tries to get around this by saying works of law are dietary or ritual, but the knowledge of sin doesn’t come thru circumcision or dietary laws. From 3:10-18 he lists every way we break the moral law. EVERY time Paul speaks of law, he is talking about the WHOLE law. Sometimes Paul says works, sometimes he says law, and sometimes he says works of law. Galatians 3:10 ” Cursed is anyone who does not abide in ALL things of the law. If one is going to seek to be justified in any way by works, they better keep it all. Read Tim’s article on Romans 2. Rome misinterprets this chapter. See John 5:24, those justified by faith alone in Christ alone passed out of judgment and death into life. Rome can only see the gospel as that which enables believers to become righteous by obedience and that which is compensation for their lack, not realizing the law requires perfection. To confuse law and Gospel is to corrupt faith at its core. Hope this helps. K
Kevin said – The verse you cited is to be understood hypothetically ( for none can keep the law perfectly)
Me – can you expand on this? what is he saying?
As BOB noted you disagree with Paul .
Just saying hypothetical doesn’t cut it.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Indeed.
CK, chapter 2 of Romans MUST be understood in the context of the first 3 chapters of Romans and then Romans as a whole. Chapter 2 is addressing Jews who were judging the gentiles. And Paul says to them, you who judge, do you do the same things ( commit adultery, steal, etc.) and yet you judge them. Then he sets the standard of the law. James 2:10, Galatians 3:10 . Jut like when Jesus says in Mathew “if you even lust in your mind after a woman you have committed adultery” How are men doing with that one? Jesus sets the standard of the law so high ( perfection) that no one can keep it. This is why that section must be understood hypothetically. The gentiles were keeping the law because they were justified by faith. The Jews weren’t keeping the law because they had not repented and believed the gospel. So Paul tells them what the law requires,” God will render to every man according to his deeds etc.” But in chapter 3: 20 he turns around and says ” no one will be justified by observing the law. In fact he says all men are shut up by the law, because thru it comes the knowledge of our sinfulness, which in turns drives us running to the gospel, which is defined in 3:21 that is APART from all law and comes thru faith alone. Here is how Paul put it in Romans 1:16 ” for it is the power of God ( the gospel) for SALVATION to everyone who BELIEVES” Law can do nothing but drive us to Christ. But Rome conflates law and gospel and Jesus becomes a gentler Moses with an easier law, love and heartfelt surrender, as if loving God with all of heart souls and mind is possible. It’s not. Although in our sanctification and pursuit of holiness we attempt to do this. But Rome fails to realize that perfection is required by the law, and the law includes love. And by failing to recognize the distinction between law and gospel, it has led its people to a false gospel. Romans 9:32 -10:4 should be understood by Catholics, for it is a stern warning for them. Paul says the gentiles weren’t looking for salvation but found it. Why? Because they pursued it by Faith. OTOH the Jews were looking for it and didn’t find it. Why? Because they pursued it as if it were by works in some way. The Jews believed in grace, but they tried to add their works in searching for their pardon( justification) and God rejected them, and in Romans 10:1 Paul prays for their salvation. 10:4 ” For Christ is the END of the law for righteousness to all who BELIEVE. In Rome Christ is the beginning of the law for righteousness. False gospel. Its hypothetical because Paul lays the standard of the law ( with the verse you sited and also 2:13), and hypothetically a man could be justified that way. But in reality it shuts all men up ( 3:19) and drives them to the gospel because none of us can keep it. There is no greater example of this that the rich young ruler. When he called Jesus good, JESUS said why do you call me good, no man is good. If Jesus didn’t consider himself good, neither do I. Jesus said this to make a point, because obvious He was perfect. The rich ruler thought he was pretty spiffy, answered all Jesus questions about his good works, but then Jesus found his sin, and he walked away. There is only one way in CK, Christ’s imputed righteousness that comes by faith. Rome can’t lead you there. If Uncle Abe couldn’t boast about his works, either can uncle Kevin. Romans 4:1 -5. Hope you find your way out of babylon to freedom. I responded as you asked, and trust me after 2 years I’m done. God bless.
Kevin Failoni–
You said: “Clement of ROME ( 30-100) ” And we too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or WORKS which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by FAITH through which FROM THE BEGINNING, Almighty God justified all me; to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.” Seems like this Bishop of Rome understood Paul. Probably didn’t go around calling himself devout.”
See, this is what I am talking about. This is a small quote from the 1st epistle to the Corinthians chapter 32.
Now, you’re going to hear the rest of the story. from the same epistle, right after chapter 32 comes:
Chapter 33. But Let Us Not Give Up the Practice of Good Works and Love. God Himself is an Example to Us of Good Works.
What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let US hasten with all energy and readiness of mind TO PERFORM EVERY GOOD WORK. For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works. For by His infinitely great power He established the heavens, and by His incomprehensible wisdom He adorned them. He also divided the earth from the water which surrounds it, and fixed it upon the immovable foundation of His own will. The animals also which are upon it He commanded by His own word into existence. So likewise, when He had formed the sea, and the living creatures which are in it, He enclosed them [within their proper bounds] by His own power. Above all, with His holy and undefiled hands He formed man, the most excellent [of His creatures], and truly great through the understanding given him— the express likeness of His own image. For thus says God: ‘Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness. So God made man; male and female He created them.’ Genesis 1:26-27 Having thus finished all these things, He approved them, and blessed them, and said, ‘Increase and multiply.’ Genesis 1:28 We see, then, how all righteous men have been adorned WITH GOOD WORKS, and how the Lord Himself, adorning Himself with His works, rejoiced. Having therefore such an example, let us without delay accede to His will, AND LET US WORK THE WORK of righteousness with our whole strength.
Chapter 34. Great is the Reward of Good Works with God. Joined Together in Harmony, Let Us Implore that Reward from Him.
The good servant receives the bread of his labour with confidence; the lazy and slothful cannot look his employer in the face. It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: ‘Behold, the Lord [comes], and His REWARD is before His face, to render to every man according to HIS WORK.’ He exhorts us, therefore, with our whole heart to attend to this, that we be not lazy or slothful in any GOOD WORK. Let our boasting and our confidence be in Him. Let us SUBMIT OURSELVES to His will.
You see, Kevin, when you read the whole thing in context, it tells a slightly different story. Clement also believed in the reward or merit of works. He may not have been going around saying he was devout, but he sure urged it in his writing.
“You see a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
Bob, again you have no understanding between the distinction made between justification and sanctification. If you will notice in my quote from Clement that he EXCLUDES all works from being justified before God, even those wrought in holiness of heart. So he can’t be talking about justification in your quote, it just be the result of saving faith. Which i totally agree with. Listen, because this is VERY important. The Reformers didn’t have a problem with merit, but the LOCATION of that merit. And your church has it wrong. Next time you see your Catholic friend and say, that guy is a “devout” Catholic, think of this verses Luke 16:15 ” And He ( Jesus) said to them ” you are the one’s who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts, for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God. There was a gal one time on CCC, and her name escapes me, when asked by Robert if anyone had ever done a perfect work in the eyes of God, piped up and said ” I have done many perfect good works for God” Maybe she should have read this verse from Jesus before making a comment like that. God’s standard is perfection for anyone who thinks their works are spiffy enough to play a part in their pardon. The Bishop of Rome just said in the quote that I provided that nothing, nothing, but faith alone will justify a person before God. Maybe the” scholastics” should have read Clement a little closer. Have a great weekend. God bless
KEVIN–
You said: “Bob, as I told CK. this will be my last post on this. To continue to go back and forth with this is senseless.”
Thank you. I’m getting tired of it, too.
Here here!
Ten bucks Kevin will break his promise and post a comment on this “dead” subject before the day is done. He cannot help himself. He is hooked.
Remember all the times he promised to give up blogging ( trolling ) only to, like the bad penny, turn up a day later?
Your welcome. And all God’s people said Amen! Discussion adjourned. Have a good weekend.
Kevin said – There was a gal one time on CCC, and her name escapes me, when asked by Robert if anyone had ever done a perfect work in the eyes of God, piped up and said ” I have done many perfect good works for God” Maybe she should have read this verse from Jesus before making a comment like that.
Me – there was this guy at CCC (oh yeah it was you Kevin)when asked if you had to forgive to be saved and he said no. Even after he was shown this verse he still made a comment like that.
Matt 6:14-15 “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
The joys of being elect. Any verse that goes against your belief is waved away!!!! Jesus couldn’t have meant what he said! He was speaking hypothetically!!!!!!!!!!
CK, ok, I get you believe that Jesus is teaching you have to forgive perfectly to be justified. Have you forgiven “everyone” perfectly CK? Again Jesus is establishing the standard of the Law, perfect forgiveness. How you doing with that? When i look at that standard, i so glad God in His mercy gave us the gospel. Romans 6:23 ” for the wages of sin is death, but the FREE gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord. We can’t earn it, and we don’t deserve it, we just receive it with an empty hand. Its a free gift. We don’t have to work really, really hard for His grace. He gives it to us freely. Like Calvin says, no one can really obey freely until they understand free justification before God. It’s allot easier to love your neighbor when you know your not obligated to. God bless, have a nice weekend.
KEVIN–
So all I have to do is have faith alone in Christ alone to be saved. I’ve done that. Now I am saved. There is nothing I can do to be snatched from the palm of His hand, right?
What happens if I slip up and go to a Catholic Mass and partake of the Eucharist? Am I still saved?
Kevin said – CK, ok, I get you believe that Jesus is teaching you have to forgive perfectly to be justified. Have you forgiven “everyone” perfectly CK?
Me – you keep throwing bringing in the word perfectly. What’s the definition of forgiving perfectly?
Jesus says you must forgive men’s sins or the Father will not forgive you. It’s as plain as day yet you disagree with it. Using the principles of SS you are correct as am I. Everyone wins!!!
So riddle me this, if catholics worship God and also throw in some idolatry in there, why is this bad? I mean, it’s impossible to keep God’s commands perfectly and that includes worship! When was the last time you worshiped Him perfectly?
I know, I know… The bible tells us to worship only Him and like forgiving men’s sins it’s impossible to do it perfectly so just accept Him as your Lord and Savior and the Gospel is nothing but guidelines and impossible suggestions you may choose or not choose to follow on your way to heaven!!!!
Like you said – ” for the wages of sin is death, but the FREE gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord. We can’t earn it, and we don’t deserve it, we just receive it with an empty hand. Its a free gift. We don’t have to work really, really hard for His grace. He gives it to us freely.
CK, said ” I know, I know, The bible tells us to worship Him only and like forgiving men’s sins, its impossible to do it perfectly so just accept Him as your Lord and Savior and the gospel is nothing but guidelines and suggestions you may choose or not choose to follow.” Lets break this statement down. CK, maybe somebody hasn’t sent you the message, but you” choose and not choose to follow God’s law” too. We all do. No one follows God’s commandments perfectly, thats why it is “hypothetical ” to say man can fulfill God’s law which requires perfection. In our sanctification we pick up our cross and follow Him in holiness, to live righteously. And yes we will all stand before God who renders to every man according to his deeds. But Calvin, just like Augustine, said that none of our works can stand before Him and pass the test. Thats why we, as Paul seek to be clothed in another’s righteousness, and do not look to our works, love, doing in anyway to be justified. Frankly, You think this is a cop out because sadly you have no understanding of your utter sinfulness and spiritual bankruptcy, like the rest of us before God. Your first statement is spot on, although you meant it sarcastically. The bible does tell us to worship Him only, with all of our heart soul and mind, with no room to dullia anyone. And yes we don’t forgive perfectly, intact we all fail miserably, so we seek to to trust in His righteousness alone. Come in an join us, there is plenty room for sinners in Christ’s church. Luther said he got saved from a church of saints. Hope this helps CK. I’m praying for you and Bob. Blessings Kevin
Btw may you also have a blessed weekend!
John Calvin Institutes God’s law ” We realize how unworthy we are of being his creatures at all, let alone being regarded as sons. Second, we assess our powers, we see that they are not only inadequate for fulfilling the Law,, but good for nothing. The result of all this is to produce distrust of our own ability and also an anxious and fearful mind. Conscience cannot feel the burden of guilt without turning to God’s judgment ; this brings with it the fear of death. In the same way, evidence of our complete powerlessness makes us despair of our own strength. Both feelings produce humility and shame, so the sinner, terrified of the prospect of eternal death ( which he sees hanging over him rightly for his sin), turns to God’s mercy as the only safe refuge. Realizing his total inability to pay what he owes to the Law, and so despairing of himself, he looks to some other quarter for help.” ” Come unto Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” Mathew 11: 28-30. ” “The joys of being Elect”
Kevin,
John Calvin does not institute God’s law.
Jim, Have you ever read Institutes? Calvin ” Paul frequently implies the demand for holy living which God has every right to make. He gives no hope of eternal life unless we obey fully, and pronounces judgment for the slightest failure. Paul shows that we are freely accepted by God and accounted righteous only when we are forgiven, because such obedience to the Law for which a reward is promised could never be found . So he rightly represents the righteousness of the Law and gospel as diametrically opposed. but the gospel has not succeeded the Law in such a way as to usher in a different plan of salvation. On the contrary , it confirms the Law and proves that everything it promised is fulfilled. Thats why Romans 1 calls the gospel ” the power of God for salvation to all who believe” We should seek our salvation in the gospel which is our justification apart from works, Paul says to which the Law and the Prophets witnessed. Since God will render to every man according to what he has done, and we understand who we are before God in the mirror of the law and its requirements ( desperate sinners) we echo the words of Paul, not wanting to be found in our own righteousness,but seek through faith alone in Christ alone to be clothed in His righteousness not trusting in our works or doing at all. Works are for this life, not the next. Simultaneously justified and glorified. Hope this helps you understand Calvin better. I believe he was the greatest theologian who ever lived. Blessings Jim.
Wow, CK, Jim and Bob, I really thought you grasped the distinctions in justification vs. sanctification. It appears that you have not understand this biblical concept yet.
My hope is that the three of you will one day collectively, or individually, learn the differences.
“The natural man understandeth not the things of God.”
Does justification save without sanctification?
” For by grace you have been saved thru faith, not that of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not a result of works, lest anyone should boast. As you can see clearly in this verse we are saved not by anything wrought in us, but by grace thru faith, nothing as coming from ourselves. Our works simply the result of saving faith not the condition for our acceptance before God. “” The righteous shall live by faith” In the false gospel of Romanism one is sanctified before they are finally justified. Its partly by grace and partly by works. Romans 11:6 ” if its by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, or grace is no longer grace. Grace is no longer grace in Rome. Grace is simply the means of exchange on the church merit system. Hope this helps. K
Bob,
Kevin tries bamboozling with this,
“we are saved not by anything wrought in us, but by grace thru faith, “.
Faith for Kelvinists is given only to those who are elect from all eternity past. Despite the quote, Kelvinists are not saved by by grace through faith. No. First they are saved ( actually they were never lost ) and then given faith.
He lies further and abuses God’s written Word by saying,
“Our works simply the result of saving faith not the condition for our acceptance before God.”
For the kelvinist, all hinges on election. If you are elect, you will do works. Forget St. Paul’s exhortations to avoid sin and work. They are unnecessary. The elect cannot help themselves from doing good works.
Despite what James says, works have no causative part in salvation for the kelvinist.
Forget what Kelvin says about faith or works. He isn’t telling the truth about Kelvinism. Kelvinism is a simple religion that says God makes some for heaven and some for hell. The ones made for heaven will believe and work. Man has nothing to do with it or as Kelvin says, ‘ man does not smuggle his works into salvation”.
Kelvin is so intent on man not smuggling that he prefers an ogre for a god.
Jim wrote:
“For the kelvinist, all hinges on election. If you are elect, you will do works. Forget St. Paul’s exhortations to avoid sin and work. They are unnecessary. The elect cannot help themselves from doing good works.”
Jim, you are finally starting to understand the distinction. Thank you for FINALLY starting to learn some of these issues…I’ve been watching you for months here hoping one day you would hear or listen to something being said, and comprehend it.
Your position is classic Romish and Arminianism.
Arminianism teaches: ‘… and as many as believed were ordained to eternal life.’
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘AND AS MANY AS WERE ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED.’ (Acts 13:48)
Bob , As per your question, can I suggest a 10 minute message by Professor R Scott Clarke on youtube ” The crucial difference between Roman Catholicism and biblical salvation” Its very good, and should answer your question.
Let me rephrase, can you be glorified without sanctification?
Simultaneously justified and glorified. ” He who began a good work in you WILL perfect us until thecday of Christ.” We arent justified by our Spirit led works, or doing our part, we are justified by the active and passive obedience of Christ that is apprehended by faith alone. Our righteousness isnt derived from His, it is His righteousness. thosecwho are saved will be sanctified and glorified. And yes sanctification, becoming holy sothat our practice matches our position is hard work, just read Romans 7 the most mature Christian in the bible.
Walt,
Arminianism is a form of romishness called molinism.
All Tim’s readers article by Michael Snyder October 28 ” The Popes embrace of Evolution brings us one step closer to one World Religion”
Wasn’t it Pope John Paul II that said this?
“The truth is that sanctification is God’s work, but He performs it through the diligent self-discipline and righteous pursuits of His people, not in spite of them. God’s sovereign work does not absolve believers from the need for obedience; it means their obedience is itself a Spirit-empowered work of God.
Today there is an intense debate within the church about this vital issue. The stakes are high—your view of sanctification informs and directs how you understand your new nature in Christ, how you evangelize others, pursue godliness, govern your heart and mind, how you raise and discipline your children, and how you understand and follow God’s commands in Scripture.”
Bob,
That citation from John MacArthur can be found here.
Tim
Just as I thought. You’ve got the same resources as I do. Just wanted to see if you were doing your homework.
Bob, you attributed a post from Macarthur on sanctification to a Pope? Why?
To see if you would attack it as much as if it really were a Catholic quote. But Tim is watching out for you. Now for Tim and Kevin both to answer:
Why does John McArthur consider sanctification a paradox?
Bob, the gospel isnt go out and do your part as Scott Clarke says, it is Christ did His part by perfectly fulfilling the law, which required perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience, He satified God’s wrath by becoming a curse for us. Galatians 3. We know this by 2 things, It is finished, and He is risen. The medieval church missed this. They thought He came to help us fulfill the law thru sacraments, helping us to acumulate that righteouness necessary for salvation. They missed that He did it all, and all we could do is receive this perfect righteouness by faith for out salvation. Not about what God does in us, but what He did for us. Our sanctification should take all our effort, but is never the basis for our pardon. This brings peace and assurance and joy to the believer. Jesus said come unto me all who are of heavy burden, I will give you rest. You cant find that in Catholicism, because your pardon depends in some way on you. Hope you will listen to the Scott Clarke video and continue to read Tim’s articles. K
Bob,
Kevin says,
“Christ did His part by fulfilling the Law” ( for those elect from all eternity by a secret decree ).
Then he says,
“He satisfied God’s wrath by becoming a curse ( for those elect from all eternity by a secret decree ).
Kevin says further,
“Not about what God does in us, but what He did for us ( elect from all eternity by a secret decree ).
Kevin says,
“This brings peace and assurance and joy to the believers ( elect from all eternity by a secret decree ).
Bob, all of Kevin’s pious claptrap hangs on a secret decree from all eternity to elect some and put everyone else in hell.
Kevin’s God makes men specifically for hell.
Ask him to explain, ” Jacob I loved but Esau I hated”.
Kevin’s God hates a baby in the womb who has never done anything good or bad. He hates him first and then makes sure he sins so he can be “justly” condemned to an eternity in hell.
Calvinists pretend to be so pious. They bow their heads in hushed silence before the unfathomable decree to create men for hell and then they say it is a great and wonderful mystery.
In fact it is grotesque, All of the sanctimonious blather above hinges on secret decrees to make some for heaven and some for hell.
It is all a blasphemous hogwash wrapped up Bible talk.
Jim says:
“Bob, all of Kevin’s pious claptrap hangs on a secret decree from all eternity to elect some and put everyone else in hell. Kevin’s God makes men specifically for hell.
Ask him to explain, ” Jacob I loved but Esau I hated”.
Kevin’s God hates a baby in the womb who has never done anything good or bad. He hates him first and then makes sure he sins so he can be “justly” condemned to an eternity in hell.”
Excellent Jim…you are really showing your Romish and Arminian and Antichristian views. Thank you.
Arminianism teaches: “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.”
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth:) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated.’ (Rom. 9:11-13).
Walt,
Do you believe Esau was predestined to hell prior to any foreseen demerits?
( Either way you answer Walt, I gotcha’! )
KEVIN–
You said “They(medieval church) missed that He did it all, and all we could do is receive this perfect righteouness by faith for out salvation. Not about what God does in us, but what He did for us. Our sanctification should take all our effort, but is never the basis for our pardon.”
John McArthur seems to disagree–
“The truth is that sanctification is God’s work, but He performs it THROUGH THE DILIGENT SELF-DISCIPLINE AND RIGHTEOUS PURSUITS OF OF HIS PEOPLE, not in spite of them. God’s sovereign work does not absolve believers from the NEED for obedience; it means their obedience is itself a Spirit-empowered work of God.”
Sanctification is NEEDED and done THROUGH our works in the Spirit. If sanctification is not needed for our salvation, what is it needed for?
Bob, come on please…read what you quoted:
MacArthur says:
“God’s sovereign work does not absolve believers from the NEED for obedience; it means their obedience is itself a Spirit-empowered work of God.”
You said:
“Sanctification is NEEDED and done THROUGH our works in the Spirit. If sanctification is not needed for our salvation, what is it needed for?”
Please understand that it is clear from MacArthur that “….it means their obedience is itself a Spirit-empowered work of God.”
Do you see it is a SPIRIT led work of GOD, not man?
How can you have a SPIRIT LED WORK OF GOD without being justified in Christ first?
Walt said ” how can you have a Spirit led work of God, if your not justified in Christ first. Exactly. Unless your BobCk and Jim and Roman Catholics who must be sanctified before they are justified. K
Bob, let me know if this helps at least define the differences. I am certain you will not agree with the position Westminster takes on justification vs. sanctification, but at least you can see the distinction.
1. The Nature of Justification
a. According to Rome justification is a change in the moral nature of a sinner. According to Rome justification is not a judicial act of God whereby He objectively imputes the righteousness of Christ to the believing sinner and declares him to be righteous on the ground of Christ’s perfect righteousness, but rather a moral transformation by God whereby He subjectively cleanses the heart of sin and corruption and renews man within by giving to man the righteousness of God. This confusion blurs the biblical distinction between justification (an objective judicial act) and sanctification (a subjective moral transformation), thus removing the judicial nature of justification. Just as our sin was imputed to Christ, so His righteousness is imputed (not infused) to the believing sinner.
Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man (CCC, p. 536, #1989).
With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us (CCC, p. 536, #1991).
It [i.e. justification–GLP] conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy (CCC, p. 536, #1992).
Justification entails the sanctification of his whole being (CCC, p. 537, #1995).
Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man (CCC, p. 544, #2019).
b. According to Westminster justification is not a subjective moral transformation, but rather an objective judicial act whereby God imputes to the believing sinner the perfect righteousness of Christ and declares him to be righteous. Westminster correctly distinguishes justification and sanctification.
Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for
Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God (WCF 11:1).
Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for any thing in them, their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners (WCF 11:3).
Walt,
The”biblical” distinction between justification and sanctification?
Don’t you mean the “Protestant” distinction?
Jim wrote:
“Walt,
The”biblical” distinction between justification and sanctification?
Don’t you mean the “Protestant” distinction?”
Actually, you are right Jim. The Protestant distinction is not the biblical position. In fact, the Protestant visible church is really in many ways a mirror of the Romish church in doctrine, worship and government.
The true biblical position on justification and worship is the reformed Westminster and Covenanter position as defined by the Westminster Confession of Faith, and all the reformed Confessions during the first and second reformations.
Thanks for making this distinction. To be clear, we know that the Romish position is not even close to the biblical position, but you would rightly agree that Rome has no interest to take the biblical position, but only the historical church position…or the Antichristian position.
Walter,
There is no visible Protestant church. There is no catholic church but the Catholic Church.
Sounds to me like the Catholic is just as saved as the Protestant, they just look at it from a different perspective. You say the Westminster distinction is correct. The Catholics say theirs is correct. When it all boils down to it, both are saved.
Bob said ” You say Westminster distinction is correct . Catholics saythey are correct. When I boils down to it both are saved. You have maintained this theme throughout, that both views of the gospel are correct. You site a qoute on sanctification from MacArthur and say the Pope gave it. When John MacArthur taught that passage on sanctification, he is talking about the sanctification of a person who is justified by faith alone in Christ alone, apart from any doing. Bob, you refuse to accept that your belief that you must be sanctified before you are justified is a completely different gospel, the false gospel of Rome. The scripture is clear that if a person looks to their obedience, love, works to be justified (accepted) before God, they arent saved. The Reformation wasnt an intramural squable, it wasabout the gospel. When Rome anathematized jbfa, it anathamatized the gospel of scripture. You have been told so many times to no avail. God bless.
KEVIN–
You said: “Bob, you refuse to accept that your belief that you must be sanctified before you are justified is a completely different gospel, the false gospel of Rome.”
And you refuse to accept that sanctification is needed for salvation. You have been told so many times to no avail.
Bob, when you say sanctification is needed for salvation, you mean your justification is BASED on your sanctification, your response to grace. False Gospel. Salvation is a free gift for Christians, we cant earn it, or we dont deserve it. For you and your Roman Rligion its a reward for perfect sanctification. So at the end of your life God says, hmm, ok lets grade Bob’s sanctification and see if he can be justified. No, another 1000 years in Purgatory. You dont accept Christian’ are justified by another’s righteouness, not ours in any way. And why? Because your righteouness is spiffy and can survive the perfect requirements of the law. Let us know how that goes.
“The Regulative Principle of Worship declares that God alone is sovereign in worship. The Regulative Principle of Worship simply applies the principles of Calvinism (i.e. God’s sovereign Lordship) to worship, whereas the view that what God doesn’t forbid in worship is permitted is applying the principles of Arminianism (i.e. man’s sovereign lordship) to worship.
Just as fallen man naturally seeks to impose his will in salvation (e.g. “I can cooperate with God in salvation”, or “I have a natural freedom to choose Christ”), so fallen man naturally seeks to impose his will in worship (“I can cooperate with God in worship by adding what I desire so long as God doesn’t specifically forbid it”). But just as God condemns a man-centered salvation, so God condemns a man-centered worship (Col. 2:23 specifically condemns all will-worship, i.e. all worship instituted by man).” – Greg Price, Foundation for Reformation: The Regulative Principle of Worship, p. 10
http://www.sermonaudio.com/new_details3.asp?ID=18872
This is awesome.
Walt.
“Just as fallen man naturally seeks to impose his will in salvation (e.g. “I can cooperate with God in salvation”, or “I have a natural freedom to choose Christ”)”.
Why don’t yoyuuse the theological term used by Kelvin?
Just say, “smuggle”.
Tim,
My dad went to Notre Dame so I was raised on everything Notre Dame. I was researching to some of the reformation materials, and came across “Society for Reformation Research” and was a bit shocked that the editors for this “reformation research” was two professors at Notre Dame.
Is it any wonder some of the articles I see about the reformation are so twisted? I sometimes run across articles I read and I’m thinking these authors are warped in what they are writing. Now that I know who are the leading “experts” on the reformation articles and research, it makes sense.
It really is incredible the reach of the Romish church to tell the story of the Christian church in history from her own view.
http://www.reformationresearch.org/index.html
http://arg.nd.edu/ARGeditorial.htm
Randall C. Zachman
University of Notre Dame
Department of Theology
130 Malloy Hall
Notre Dame, IN 46556
(574) 631–5141
Fax: (574) 631–4291
rzachman@nd.edu
Brad Gregory
University of Notre Dame
Department of History
219 O’Shaughnessy Hall
Notre Dame, IN 46556
(574) 631–6615
Fax: (574) 631–4717
bgregor3@nd.edu
Walt,
Did your Notre Dame dad teach you to say “romish”? Or to say “was” when you should say “were”?
A antidote against Arminianism in worship. Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. (1 John 5:21).
Furthermore, it should be noted, that ‘it is also important to realize that the regulative principle also provides the basis for the positive work of reformation. That is, it not only requires the exclusion of man-made worship; but it points us to the divine pattern of true worship’ (Kevin Reed, John Knox: The Forgotten Reformer).
Arizona State put it all over Notre Dame yesterday in football. I can remember the first time i went to visit the campus at Notre Dame and in the end zone of their stadium is touchdown Jesus. I tried to get my arms around that one.
Yep, true worship, seems clear. One mediator between man and God. Worshiping God in the Spirit and in Truth, Jesus said God was looking for true worshipers. I often said to myself if we are to worship God with all of our heart, soul, and mind, how can there be any room for anything, or anyone else.
“Free will” is represented by “Arminianism teaches” below.
Arminianism teaches: ‘… and as many as believed were ordained to eternal life.’
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘AND AS MANY AS WERE ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED.’ (Acts 13:48)
Arminianism teaches: “For many are called, but few choose.”
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘FOR MANY ARE CALLED, BUT FEW ARE CHOSEN.’ (Matt. 22:14)
Arminianism teaches: “Make your decision for Christ.”
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.’ (Matt. 11:27)
Arminianism teaches: “I accepted Jesus as my personal saviour.”
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you (John 15:16). Also: But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me.’ (Paul’s testimony in Galatians 1:15,16)
Arminianism teaches: “God can’t save you unless you let him, it is your choice.”
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy…Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.’ (Romans 9:16, 18).
Arminianism teaches: “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.”
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth:) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated.’ (Rom. 9:11-13).
Arminianism teaches: “God wants everyone to be saved.”
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand…'(Mark 4:11,12).
Jim, ” Who can bring a charge against God’s elect? Can you, Bob, CK, ” it is Gos who justifies. Romans 8:33. Its a marriage made in heaven. Just like the wife who has debt, when she gets married, gets all her debt paid off and all the riches of her husband. “For those whom He foreknew He predestined.” There is room on the mercy train, its going to Zion. Blessings Jim.
Jim, couple things. Babies are born with a sin nature by hereditary right. You should be aroung some of the little rug rats I’ve been around. Lol Do I believe that children are in the hands and care of God, sure. Secondly, what does James say, I will show who? God. No, I wil show YOU my faith by my works. Then he says ” Abraham believed God and God counted him righteouness. No conflict with Paul.
Kelvin,
The whole James thing is about SALVATION and not about vindication.
James asks, ” Can faith SAVE you?” and not “Can works vindicate you?”
Of course Paul says we are saved by faith because we are. He says in Hebrews that faith is believing God exists and that He *Rewards* those who seek Him.
REWARDS THOSE WHO SEEK HIM. That is faith Kelvin. Where is your “empty hand” faith?
In the 12th Chapter of that same book he says to “strive for the holiness without which nobody will see God”.
So, Believe+Seek+Strive. Then add repent, be baptized, and confess with your lips. And then, if you PERSEVERE to the end, you will be saved.
Tell me again about Faith Alone being somewhere in the Bible. I don’t see it.
Jim , ” where is your empty hand faith” Genesis 15:6 ” And Abraham believed God and He counted it to him as righteouness.” He simply believed the promise and was counted righteous. A child could understand it, why cant you Jim? Why does your churchpile so much on the cross that wont permit men to be saved. John says as many as receive Him have the right to be called children of God. Paul told the jailer when asked how to be saved, belive on the Lord, and Jesus said the tax collector went home righteos after he believed. He told the theif today your in paradise, and He told so many their faith had saved and healed them. But you guys have to wear scapulars, pray rosaries, march the bread around the street, pray to saints, participate in another sacrifice of the Mass, indulgences, etc. Why Jim? Abraham simply believed and was righteous. The gospel is simple. Blessings Jim.
Jim, you said:
“Walt,
Do you believe Esau was predestined to hell prior to any foreseen demerits? ( Either way you answer Walt, I gotcha’! )”
Did you not read the Scripture proof text I quoted? It says:
‘(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth:) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated.’ (Rom. 9:11-13).
IT IS VERY CLEAR…that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth…
Do you not understand that it is the purpose of God according to election, NOT WORKS?
It is crystal clear. Your problem Jim is you suffer from the ability to hear, listen and comprehend. I’ve seen it for many months that even debating Tim most of what he writes you don’t even hear any of it as you are so self absorbed. I don’t think you are entirely ignorant or a fool, but sometimes I wonder if there is a mental problem as very few people can be taught so many things, and really not grasp any of them.
You wrote:
“Walter,
There is no visible Protestant church. There is no catholic church but the Catholic Church.”
This proves that you even lack the ability to reason based upon visible evidence. It is hard to comprehend someone who is unable to even see with their eyes that there is clearly a testifying protestant church filled with enormous schism, division and heresy. And as Tim has proven here over the past few months, the Catholic Church is an antichrist.
“The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the largest Christian church, with more than 1.2 billion members worldwide.[1] It is among the oldest religious institutions in the world, and has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilisation.[2] The Catholic hierarchy is headed by the Bishop of Rome, known as the Pope. The Catholic Church teaches that it is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ,[3][4] that its bishops are the successors of Christ’s apostles and that the Pope is the sole successor to Saint Peter, who has primacy among the apostles.[5][note 1][6][note 2][note 3] The Church maintains that the doctrine on faith and morals that it presents as definitive is infallible.[7][8][note 4]”
It is incredibly sad you don’t hear anything people teach you.
The Catholics love their works Walt, and thats why they hate election, and I mean hate it. God bless
You can’t. And Catholics teach that. Will justification alone get you into heaven without sanctification?
Answer the question, please.
If sanctification is not needed for our salvation, what is it needed for?
Our works are for our neighbor, they are for this world, not the next. God doesnt need our works. Romans 11:6 ” if its by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, or grace is no longer grace. I answered your question, so answer the question please, what is 11:6 saying. And dont tell me its pre salvation works, it says all works. Ill await your response.
Kelvin,
You love your stupidity.
Even if the pagan associations of the past or the current association with Roman Catholicism in the present were absent, the very fact that the Bible does not teach the observance of Christmas or Easter should be enough for us to avoid it. In the Old Testament, when God told the people of Israel exactly how to worship him, including the special days they were to observe, he also said, “what thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it”. (Deut. 12:32 cf Lev. 10:1-2) In the New Testament Christ taught the same thing: “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men” (Mark 7/7-8). The Apostle Paul also warns against “will worship” (Col. 2:22-23), that is worship that originates in what man wants to do rather than what God requires him to do. We may like to say to others, “you worship God your way, I’ll worship him mine”, but God actually requires us to worship him neither your way nor my way, but his way. The “church calendar” was never appointed by God. … This scriptural teaching that whatever Scripture does not warrant is to be excluded from worship is known as the “regulative principle”. The exclusion of the church calendar, uninspired hymns, musical instruments, vestments and unscriptural ceremonies as well as more modern encroachments such as drama and dance, all stand on this same principle. Acceptance of this principle is a mark of a Reformed Church. – – David Silversides, Why No Christmas Or Easter?, emphases added
Kevin wrote:
“The Catholics love their works Walt, and thats why they hate election, and I mean hate it. God bless.”
Here is what the Scottish Confession says about their works:
Chapter 14
What Works are Reputed Good before God
We confess and acknowledge that God has given to man his holy law, in which not only are forbidden all such works as displease and offend his godly Majesty, but also are commanded all such as please him, and as he has promised to reward.[1] And these works are of two sorts: the one are done to the honour of God, the other to the profit of our neighbours; and both have the revealed will of God for their assurance.
To have one God; to worship and honour him; to call upon him in all our troubles; to reverence his holy name; to hear his word; to believe the same; to communicate with his holy sacraments, are the works of the first table.[2] To honour father, mother, princes, rulers, and superior powers; to love them, to support them, yea, to obey their charges (not repugning to the commandment of God); to save the lives of innocents; to repress tyranny; to defend the oppressed; to keep our bodies clean and holy; to live in sobriety and temperance; to deal justly with all men, both in word and in deed; and, finally, to repress all appetite of our neighbour’s hurt,[3] are the good works of the second table, which are most pleasing and acceptable unto God, as those works that are commanded by himself.
The contrary whereof is sin most odious, which always displeases him, and provokes him to anger: as, not to call upon him alone, when we have need; not to hear his word with reverence; to contemn and despise it; to have or to worship idols; to maintain and defend idolatry; lightly to esteem the reverent name of God; to profane, abuse, or contemn the sacraments of Christ Jesus; to disobey or resist any that God has placed in authority (while they pass not over the bounds of their office);[4] to murder, or to consent thereto; to bear hatred, or to suffer innocent blood to be shed if we may gainstand it;[5] and, finally, the transgressing of any other commandment in the first or second table, we confess and affirm to be sin,[6] by the which God’s anger and displeasure are kindled against the proud and unthankful world. So that good works we affirm to be these only that are done in faith,[7] at God’s commandment,[8] who in his law has expressed what be the things that please him. And evil works, we affirm not only those that expressedly are done against God’s commandment,[9] but those also that, in matters of religion and worshipping of God, have no other assurance but the invention and opinion of man: which God from the beginning has ever rejected, as by the prophet Isaiah,[10] and by our master Christ Jesus, we are taught in these words: In vain do they worship me, teaching the doctrines and precepts of men.[11]
1. Ex. 20:3, etc.; Deut. 5:6, etc.; 4:8.
2. Luke 10:27-28; Micah 6:8.
3. Eph. 6:1,7; Ezek. 22:1,etc.; 1Cor. 6:19-20; 1 Thess. 4:3-7; Jer. 22:3, etc.; Isa. 50:1, etc.; 1 Thess. 4:6.
4. Rom. 13:2.
5. Ezek. 22:13, etc.
6. 1 John 3:4.
7. Rom. 14:23; Heb. 11:6.
8. 1 Sam. 15:22; 1 Cor. 10:31.
9. 1 John 3:4.
10. Isa. 29:13.
11. Matt. 15:9.; Mark 7:7.
The Cause of Good Works
So that the cause of good works we confess to be, not our free will, but the Spirit of the Lord Jesus who, dwelling in our hearts by true faith, brings forth such good works as God has prepared for us to walk into. For this we most boldly affirm, that blasphemy it is to say that Christ Jesus abides in the hearts of such as in whom there is no spirit of sanctification.[1] And therefore we fear not to affirm that murderers, oppressors, cruel persecutors, adulterers, whoremongers, filthy persons, idolaters, drunkards, thieves, and all workers of iniquity, have neither true faith, neither any portion of the spirit of sanctification, which proceeds from the Lord Jesus, so long as obstinately they continue in their wickedness.
For how soon that ever the Spirit of the Lord Jesus (which God’s elect children receive by true faith) takes possession in the heart of any man, so soon does he regenerate and renew the same man; so that he begins to hate that which before he loved, and begins to love that which before he hated. And from thence comes that continual battle which is betwixt the flesh and the spirit in God’s children; while the flesh and natural man (according to their own corruption) lust for things pleasing and delectable unto the self, grudge in adversity, are lifted up in prosperity, and at every moment are prone and ready to offend the Majesty of God.[2] But the Spirit of God, which gives witnessing to our spirit, that we are the sons of God,[3] makes us to resist filthy pleasures, and to groan in God’s presence for deliverance from this bondage of corruption;[4] and finally, to triumph over sin that it reign not in our mortal bodies.[5]
This battle have not the carnal men, being destitute of God’s Spirit; but [they] do follow and obey sin with greediness, and without repentance, even as the devil and their corrupt lusts do prick them. But the sons of God (as before is said) do fight against sin, do sob and mourn, when they perceive themselves tempted to iniquity; and if they fall, they rise again with earnest and unfeigned repentance.[6] And these things they do not by their own power, but the power of the Lord Jesus, without whom they were able to do nothing.[7]
1. Eph. 2:10; Phil 2:13; John 15:5; Rom. 8:9.
2. Rom. 7:15-25; Gal. 5:17.
3. Rom. 8:16.
4. Rom. 7:24; 8:22.
5. Rom. 6:12.
6. 2 Tim. 2:26.
7. John 15:5.
Did anyone ever say it better outside the word of God. Excellent. There were no better Reformers than the Scottish Reformers.
And all they have to do is believe they are saved and they are!
Who needs 66 books of scripture to say that, right? What a waste of sheepskin. The gospel is spoken in one sentence.
Bob, Its amazing that you hate the idea of being elect and the idea of of the assurance of salvation. Why? This is peace scripture offers to all believers. Why do you believe we have to work really, really hard for God’s grace. No free lunches, huh? You seem to think its a copout for God to give the gift of eternal life freely of His grace Romans 6:23. ” The Spirit bears witness with our Spirit that we are children of God” The word of God gives us this assurance. Thats the good news. The law requires perfect, personal, perpetual obedience. We will all stand before the judgment seat of God someday and He will render to all men according to what the’ve done. Thats why we want to be found “in Christ” clothed with his righteousness, so that we will pass thru that judgment. Our works will be pleasing to Him, not because they could stand on their own, because where we lack His righteousness covers us. God looks at us as if we have never sinned. I’m praying Bob, that as Paul saw his utter sinfulness, and as Isaiah said all his deeds were as filthy deeds, you may see your utter spiritual bankruptcy and turn exclusively to Christ righteousness that comes thru faith alone. Because anyone trusting in their own righteousness in anyway to be justified, won’t be. Paul put it this way, ” that I might be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes for the law, but that which is thru faith in Christ, the righteousness that comes from God on the BASIS OF fAITH.” Rome Christ gave you the opportunity to fulfill the law by accumulating that righteousness thru sacraments and your works. But it was wrong. The righteousness that saves can’t come that way, it must come solely through faith alone, the imputed righteousness of Christ. I’m moving on to Tim’s new post. I pray someday you can understand why we don’t consider Catholics brothers and sisters in Christ, and why we consider Rome steeped in idolatry with a false gospel. The Pope and John MacArthur don’t believe the same thing about salvation. God bless you.
Kelvin,
No free lunch? You mean no free lunch for those your god has created for hell.
You rant and preach and boast in your (assumed ) election like the Pharisee did in front of the publican.
You and Walter have two options: either believe in the true God who commands men to SMUGGLE themselves into His Body of Christ via the Sacraments OR believe in your god who lies and plays games with men.
Your little godling demands men keep the commandments although he knows they can’t. Then he punishes those men with hell for disobeying his demands.
Please don’t pipe in with something about all men being sinners. Your god makes them sinners!
You guys are characters in a book written in eternity past. No freedom, no smuggling.
Save your breath Kelvin. Stop your boasting in front of men.
Walt,
The Calvinist god makes the devil redundant. Your god ordains evil. right?
Protesters,
Your god has two decrees. One that is in the Bible which says he wants all men saved, for all men to repent, and that he sent his Son to redeem them all from the power of the devil.
But he also has another decree. A secret one. He does not want all men saved and to make sure he ordains that Adam fall so he can then have a great massa damnata. That relieves him of all blame and puts it on Adam and his descendants.
Then he picks some men at random to lavish his “love” on.
The others he plays games with. He sends them the promise of salvation but not the grace to accept it. He gives them time to repent and then gets mad when they don’t. But that is because he withholds the grace to do so.
Then he JUSTLY condemns sinners for committing the sins they were compelled to do by the sinful and depraved natures he made sure they would have.
Men in your system are robots. They do as programmed. No smuggling, no choices, nada.
You guys pretend to be humble and bow your heads before this “awesome mystery”. You preach your lungs out and thus smuggle your efforts into your god’s secret decree of who gets the Holy Spirit and who doesn’t.
HA! It’s all baloney. Totally unbiblical.
I don’t believe in your god.
Jim, your objections to the sovereignty of God are the same as those voiced by the Jews of Paul’s day. They complained that God was unjust to abandon His chosen people, and Paul responded that He had not abandoned His people at all—but that the physical descendants of Abraham were not the people to whom God had made His promises:
Those children of the promise are they to whom the Lord grants repentance, for it is His to grant or to withhold:
God freely and unconditionally gives repentance to His elect, and withholds it from the reprobate, according to His holy will and His eternal decrees. This, for His own glory:
When we preach that you should repent of your idolatries, Jim, we have no misgivings or false hope that you may do so of your own “free will,” as if you could raise yourself from the dead or circumcise your own heart. Rather, we preach to you, if God peradventure will give you repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.
Perhaps it is His good pleasure to do so. Perhaps not. In either case, neither of us is of sufficient standing to stand in judgment of God’s decrees or to reply against Him. Nevertheless, it is His good pleasure to save some people by faith and to let the rest remain in their error unto condemnation.
You wrote,
That is quite true. Nor did I when I was in your shoes. Praise God, “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son” (Colossians 1:13).
Thanks,
Tim
Jim, and you would rather believein a God who gives you a little special juju and step back and hopes you will come to Him. He’s pining but cantvdo anything about it. So if you get there you get there, and if you dont you dont. Ill take Calvin’s God, the one of scripture.
Jim, hardly. I have the assurance thatthe scripture offered the believer. No more, no less. 1 John 5:13 was written so believers may know that they have eternal life. We have the inner witness of the Spirit with and by the word of God. The Reformed confessions brought that assurance back to people Rome’s semi pelagian system stripped. You said Calvanism tells people they can disobey the bible and be saved. No, Calvinism tells us we are saved and we must obey God. But Paul was accused of antinomianism, so bringit on. And how did he answer it, with more law, no more gospel. Understanding justification and God’s unconditional love gives us confidence to obey.I
Heretics,
Kick an idealist in the shins and when he yelps, tell him it is all an illusion.
Snatch the wallet away from a relativist and he will appeal to moral absolutes.
Tell a Calvinist you can’t help being a Catholic and they will preach at you as if you have freewill.
Does this mean Idealism, Moral Relativism and Calvinism are harmless?
By no means! Men implement laws and doctrines based on erroneous ideas that have disastrous results.
Calvinism tells men they can disobey the Bible and be saved. It is a doctrine of demons.
Jim said ” men implement laws and doctrines based on erroneous ideas that have disastrous results.” This is funny Jim. You describe Roman Catholicism. Men implemented laws and doctrines with disatrous results, sending men to hell. Well said Jim. Blessings.
Bob and Jim,
I’m not sure how to get you both to think, but unless your mind is renewed to these biblical truths your flesh will fight against them.
I’ve already explained the principle difference between the Romish church and Westminster position.
Rome teach that man is “infused” with righteousness over time by blending together justification by faith along with sanctification by works.
Westminster teaches that man is judicially “imputes” the righteousness of Christ alone unto the sinner by justification, and that sanctification is that outworking of the Spirit gifted to the person to desire to follow the law and testimony of Scripture. As it says above:
“This confusion blurs the biblical distinction between justification (an objective judicial act) and sanctification (a subjective moral transformation), thus removing the judicial nature of justification.”
Now both of you should not get all angry and upset that we reformed believe that it is the righteousness of Christ alone that saves the sinner (justification imputed instantly), and has nothing to do with your own righteousness that will save you (justification and sanctification infused over time).
If you really have ever read the bible, which it took me about 10 times through it cover-to-cover when I began to see these passages that make it so clear that God is sovereign over salvation, you too would see this clear biblical position, Lord willing.
Even if you don’t believe that Christ’s righteousness was sufficient to save you both, and that you must add to HIS GOOD WORKS to be saved, I would encourage you not to be angry over justification by faith alone in Christ alone. It really is a beautiful doctrine clearly taught in Scripture alone.
Kelvin,
“’… unless your mind is renewed to these biblical truths your flesh will fight against them.”
IOW, unless you are a Calvinist, you will disagree with Calvinism.
Brilliant, Kelvin. Absolutely brilliant!
“I’ve already explained the principle difference between the Romish church and Westminster position.”
No you have not! You have never spoken spoke about secret decree to send men to hell. Instead you rant about the Sacraments and smuggling and crap out of your mouth words like “death wafer”. You are careful never to speak of how your god creates some men for hell, then commands them to repent and believe, then withholds the grace to do so.
Jim, that quote was Walt’s. I’m so into your head, you think I’m writing everything. I own you. lol God bless
Jim, Bob, CK, what you don’t get is that we have been delivered from the wrath to come, we will pass thru judgment in Christ. So the eschatological result is moved up for the believer. Listen to 1 Corinthians 1: 10 ” who delivered us from so great a peril and the wrath to come, and WILL deliver us , He on whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us.” Gospel trumps law. We are saved by the gospel, which allows the believer to pass out of the domain of darkness into the Kingdom of light. Anyone who rejects this because they need to earn their way to heaven will have to endure the judgment of their works, which requires perfect, personal, perpetual obedience. There is coming a day when He will judge the the deeds and the thoughts of man. Can all of you survive that judgment? I think not. None of us can. But He offers us passage in the gospel, for He was raised for OUR justification. The greatest words to a christian ear is He is risen. Because Paul says if He isn’t your still in your sins, and your faith is useless. Catholics are still in their sins, and they act the part. Christians are no longer in their sins, we are raised up with Him, awaiting the day of our hope. The scripture says He must reign, and we will reign with Him, make no mistake, He never breaks His promise. This is the assurance believers have. God bless you all. K
Kevin – like you said. You’ve been elected to be saved. In your religion your hope is like being a Jew in Nazi Germany. You hope that you aren’t the one chosen not to be executed.
Jesus says he will not turn anyone who seeks Him away. In your religion he doesn’t turn seekers away, but hides from them to make sure He can’t be found.
In your religion one is not judged at the end of his life but before his life begins which makes most of what the gospel teaches nonsensical such as what one must do to be saved, how we will be judged when we die, etc… You turn Christ’s teachings on its head.
Going back to your earlier response to me, you said the bible says we must worship one God. I agree. It also says you must forgive to which you added the word “perfectly” (what is with Protestants and adding to the word of God?) and since we can’t do it perfectly Jesus covers for us. So again, using your belief this implies that we must worship him perfectly and if we don’t Jesus has our back. I’m one of the elect so my salvation is secured just like you. The bible told me so.
CK, I’m moving on. The gospel is called ” the good news” its not about judgment to the elect of God, its about mercy and assurance, its about the lamb of God Who TOOK away the sin of the world. Paul says rejoice always and again I say rejoice. Why? Because, what HAS BEEN accomplished. It is finished! One word in Hebrew. My salvation has been accomplished. He is my substitute. He paid it all and bought me out of slavery. He SAVED me. If you let Him off the cross and the altar and trust in Him and His righteousness alone you too can have that salvation. He is risen! But you are steeped in Mariolatry and idol worship, a salvation on the installment plan based on you. I want to apologize for continuing this on so long. All the best.
But Kevin, it’s good news only to those who have been chosen before they were born. There’s no mercy to those who have been hand picked by God to go to Hell & only assurace for you it seems since you’ve judged yourself already. In your religion Jesus (contrary to the gospels) did not die for all. His death was not enough to save all, just a few.
Mathew 7:13 ” Enter thru the narrow gate; for the way is broad that leads to destruction, there are many who enter thru it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are FEW who find it.”
KEVIN–
You said: “Bob, when you say sanctification is needed for salvation, you mean your justification is BASED on your sanctification, your response to grace. False Gospel.”
It’s not just me that says sanctification is needed for salvation, it’s Scripture and John McArthur confirms it. You’re the one not listening! Why do you think God will let you into heaven without being sanctified?
JIM, CK–
Do you detect smugness in Kevin’s “assurance”, or is it just me?
He seems absolutely sure that he is going to heaven and that you Catholics and we Methodists are not.
Tell you what, he is so confident I think I’ll listen to him. Because, since he reads the Bible, he knows that whoever teaches one and leads him astray, it will be like being thrown into the sea with a millstone around his neck. He is so confident that his interpretation of Scripture is correct that He will put his and my eternal salvation on the line.
You guys better come with us or you will be eternally damned.
See you guys on God’s golden shore……hopefully.
Bob,
BIGTIME! Kelvin is the smug pharisee of the parable.
Oh, for sure, Calvinists are quick to say their is nothing good in themselves and that they were chosen out of pure grace.
They boast in being chosen.
Bob, as I told your alter ego CK, this will be my last post to you. I apologize for carrying on so long.You said” its just not me that says sanctification is needed for justification, scripture says it, John MacArthur confirm’s it.” No, scripture doesn’t teach that one is sanctified before justified, that is Roman Catholic teaching. Scripture teaches the opposite, one is justified when they believe, and salvation is always by faith alone in Christ alone, looking to the imputed righteousness of Christ for our justification, and never to our works, love or obedience, our sanctification. There is no such thing as final justification that your church teaches. EVERY time justification is taught in scripture it is past tense. Romans 5:1, 5:8-10,8:1. And you gave false witness by attributing MacArthur’s quote to a Pope. Thank God Tim found the quote. John MacArthur is Reformed. He believes in the 5 solas. So, no he doesn’t believe that one is sanctified before he is justified. Justification precedes sanctification. All of salvation is a work of God, even our sanctification. We are just living out the miracle. Simultaneously justified and glorified. All the best Bob.
“All of salvation is a work of God, even our sanctification. We are just living out the miracle.”
And that is exactly what the Catholics and Methodists teach.
He means his last post to you today.
Mathew 7:13 ” Enter thru the narrow gate; for the way is broad that leads to destruction, there are many who enter thru it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are FEW who find it.”
But wait a minute….! WE have to find the gate AND walk through it??? I thought Jesus did that for us. Why do we have to do it?
Bob, how dare you read that passage literally!!! What it really means is God leads the elect (which Kevin has self proclaimed to be) through the narrow gate, whether or not they seek it, and moves the gate so that others who earnestly seek it cannot find it.
God didn’t really mean it when He said he wanted all to be saved. Hell was really created for humans from day one regardless of what the bible says. Its as plain as day.
KEVIN–
You said: “And you gave false witness by attributing MacArthur’s quote to a Pope. Thank God Tim found the quote.”
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Kevin! Did you not read what I wrote? I did not give false witness. I merely asked a question. I shall cut and paste it here:
Wasn’t it Pope John Paul II that said this?
Why do you thank God Tim found the quote? What were you gonna do if he didn’t…….hmmmmmm?
You could have answered “No, it was John McArthur.” But instead you accuse me, a brother in Christ, for giving false witness. Shame on you, Kevin!
guys there’s only one way to resolve this dispute. Take it to the church!!!! 😉
Yeah, you’re right. I think all the Reformed and Protestant denominations should call an ecumenical council to settle this issue once and for all and make it binding on all non-Catholics so that we will all know which side of the Tiber we need to be on. CK, Jim, you can’t have a say so in this. You’re not in our jurisdiction.
Who knows? Maybe one day their will be a Sts Luther and Calvin Basilica somewhere.
This was already taken to the church courts. It was called the Synod of Dort resolved all these issues already…and it was actually brought by the Arminians who lost.
I wonder why they didn’t stay resolved?
Very well, CK. Let us take it up with the church. But first, since your question presumes that the Roman Catholic church has the process nailed down, answer me this:
Was Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,
If your answer is A or B, how do you know? If your answer is C or D, in what way has the Church “resolved” the matter for you?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
The Church has 2,000 years of history. It would be impossible for CK or any theologian or historians to have at their fingertips a snappy comeback to every “gotcha’ question” you can dredge up. Your
have you stopped beating your wife” style of apologetics is so phony.
And it never really addresses the real issue. No more than Kelvin’s “everything but the kitchen sink” list of stuff he rants about daily as he preaches the gospel AT people.
You, Kelvin and Walt are all Calvinists. That is the issue.
You talk about everything BUT what is at the heart of our differences. You dredge up your Hislop History ( and it is his slop ) about the date that candles were first lit in a Catholic church and Kevin talks about smuggling, death wafers, works, ex opere operato, etc. etc. etc. when he pushes his “automatic response button”.
Just because John MacArthur or Sturgeon said you should preach to everybody because you don’t know who the elect are, it is still silly talk.
Let’s talk eternal decrees.
One man’s slop is another man’s truth.
Jim, we were talking eternal decrees, and CK said we ought to take it to the church so the church can resolve it for us. So I asked how that is working out on the matter of ordaining women. There is not a Catholic on earth, including CK, who knows with certainty whether the answer to my question is A, B, C or D, and yet Roman Catholics insist that we take to the “church” one more thing that she cannot resolve with certainty. Why is that? “2,000 years” of history (1600 actually), and Rome still doesn’t know if it is certainly right or wrong to ordain women? If Rome cannot solve that issue, how on earth can she resolve a matter of God’s eternal decrees? She cannot resolve the matter of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, but we are asked to defer to her judgment on other controversial matters?
Bob says we need a strong central episcopate in order to resolve such controversies and have unity of faith and dogma. Very well, what answer has the strong central episcopate given? A, B, C or D? You would think that a religion that has been claiming primacy for 1600 years could do what it claims it can do. You alleged,
It’s not a gotcha question, but you are quite right about the rest—after 1600 years of history, it is still impossible for CK or any theologian or historians to answer my question. And yet, CK and those historians and theologians insist that I check my bible at the door of the Roman religion and submit to a strong central episcopate that does not even know if what it is teaching is true, or just practical.
Thanks, but no thanks,
Tim
This Church…
The First Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical council of the Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent local and regional councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy—the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.
The Church was infallible then just as today. It gives me the same assurance that all the books in my bible are inspired. So how do you know they got it right?
Which reminds me you never answered BOB’s question regarding the council.
Yeah, why is that? Is it because Tim drives a “Dodge”?
CK, you wrote,
Are you sure? Augustine considered the Council of Arles (314) to be an ecumenical council. After the Donatists did not receive a favorable ruling from a council in Rome in 313, “the Emperor being appealed to, took pains to have the matter again more carefully examined and settled at Arles.” (Augustine, Letter 43, chapter 2.4). This council of Arles, says Augustine, was “a plenary Council of the universal Church” (Augustine, Letter 43, 7.19). Are you sure Nicea was the first ecumenical council? You continued,
Yes, and notably, without a strong central episcopate that Bob says is necessary for the establishment of uniform Christian doctrine. Another Ecumenical Council, Ephesus, decreed that “it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa” (Canon 7), and yet the Flioque Clause, absent from the Greek text used at Constantinople, an ecumenical council, was added to the Creed at the regional Council of Aachen in 809, but Pope Leo III rejected that regional council’s decision to add the clause, and forbade its use in the creed—engraving the Creed without the Filioque Clause, on silver tablets, and placing them at St. Peter’s Basilica with this epithet: “I, Leo, put these here for love and protection of orthodox faith.” But the Filioque Clause was finally adopted as part of the Nicene Creed in Rome in 1014. Was Nicea wrong to leave it out? Was Constantinople wrong to leave it out? Was Ephesus wrong to forbid anyone to change the creed of Nicea? Was Aachen wrong to add it? Was Leo III wrong to forbid it? Was Rome wrong to add it back i? If only there was a strong central episcopate who could once and for all solve this for us “for love and protection of orthodox faith.” But at least Nicea “set the precedent” for “for subsequent local and regional councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy.”
Regarding your allegation,
That is quite a leap, CK. You have attempted to take the binding actions of an ecumenical (and therefore “infallible”) council, and derive from them the authority of local and regional, and therefore fallible, councils to generate “statements of belief” and “unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.” Do you really believe that Nicea’s universality set the precedent for local and regional councils to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy? How is that possible? Did the regional council of Ariminum really make the whole world Arian, as Jerome lamented? (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 19). If Ariminum, a regional council, did not make the world Arian in 360, in what way did the regional Councils of Rome and Carthage establish the canon infallibly? If Rome and Carthage established the canon infallibly, why was Aachen, a regional council, wrong to add the Filioque Clause? If Aachen was right to add the Filioque Clause, why did Leo III forbid Aachen’s ruling to stand? Was he not aware of the precedent that was set at Nicea? You continued,
But your assurance is based on your fallible ability to examine ecumenical and non-ecumenical councils and determine which ones you personally believe to be binding, and which ones you personally believe you can dismiss as heretical. How do you tell the difference? In what way does your personal interpretation of ecumenical and non-ecumenical councils give you assurance? Surely you are not saying your personal judgment is infallible, are you? You continued,
Yes, that is the question. How do you know, CK? You continued,
Bob said a strong central episcopate is necessary to in order to establish a unity of faith and doctrine. He thinks that because the emperor called a council to resolve a dispute in 323 A.D., at which council a unity of faith and doctrine was established without a strong central episcopate, it proves that a strong central episcopate is necessary to establish a unity of faith and doctrine. I hope you can see the logical contradiction in his conclusion. My question to Bob was “who was that strong central episcopate at Nicea?”, and he has not identified one. And yet, as you say, Nicea “resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine,” and that without a strong central episcopate. If you believe there was a strong central episcopate at Nicea, who was it? Bob knows there was not one.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim – my post about the council was actually a cut and paste job of Bob’s post earlier to entice you to respond to him. I shouldnt have assumed you’d recall it and not point it out at the beginning.
I’m going to have to take some time and read your response carefully. In the meantime are you saying there was no strong episcopate or we can’t know who the episcopate was?
Thanks, CK. I appreciate the clarification. I am saying there was no strong central episcopate, and yet Nicea formulated a unified doctrine anyway.
Thanks,
Tim
Lets look at two very important proofs of papal infallibilty. Pope Sixtus V came out with his ” bull” final error free vulgate, against the judgment of many Cardinals. It ended up being latent with errors. A few years later there was a revise. Then we have a Pope in the 1400′ that declared Joan of Arc a heretic, Burned at the stake. 40 years later another Pope pardoned her. And some years later the church made her a saint. Infallibility indeed. The only thing the Roman church is fallible at is being fallible. False church indoctrination from youth is indeed an evil thing. K
Jim said your God ordains evil. God decrees all that happens. He has permitted a place in His sovereign will for sin and evil. God isn’t the cause of sin, the scripture is clear on that. Psalms 7:11 says God is angry with the wicked everyday. JPII is telling the Trinity hating Muslims, say where you are and do your best and your in. But God is angry with unbelievers, and they won’t escape His wrath. God is also glorified in the condemnation of the wicked. Those who hate the gospel will meet their just end and God will get the glory. God does everything to His sovereign good pleasure. Proverbs 16:4 says He made all things for himself, and the wicked for the day of destruction ( evil). ” Jacob I loved, Esau I hated” before they had done anything good or bad. God is always just in His love or His hate. Its Polyanish to think God loves all men the same. He loves all men in some ways, and some men in all ways. But, Esau He hated. Lets be honest, it would be just for God to throw all men into hell. ” There is none righteous, none who understands, none who seeks for God.” Thats why Isaiah says even our righteous deeds are as filthy rags. So the fact that God has mercy on some, we should be thankful for. Jesus prayed for the one’s God gave Him. ” And as many as were appointed to eternal life, believed” Election. Romans 8:29, the golden chain of salvation ” For those He foreknew, He also PREDESTINED to be conformed to the image of His son, so that He would be firstborn among many brethren, and these He PREDESTINED, He also called; and these He called, He also justified, and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” Notice Jim, its also aorist past tense. Its all a work of God. Notice justification comes before sanctification, and glorification is guaranteed to the believer. Many blessings Jim. Hope you find this. K
Kelvin,
What JPII said is not the issue. This is;
“” There is none righteous, none who understands, none who seeks for God.” Thats why Isaiah says even our righteous deeds are as filthy rags. So the fact that God has mercy on some,…”
Thsess passage have zero to do with eternal decrees.
And please don’t bray that God only “permits” evil. He ORDAINS it according to Calvin.
You preach at non Calvinists. Why? We are dead in sin, right? We are not free to respond. You say the Holy Spirit flutters about randomly landing on this guy or that.
Actually, Kelvin, He lands on only the elect from all eternity.
Don’t preach to us. Pray to God to change His eternal decree and make us elect too.
Your piss pumping unregenerate heart knows nothing of Christ. A few days ago you were telling Bob or Walt how your don’t consider Catholics brothers in Christ ( as if we are heart broken over you not being a brother. Ha! ) You love to boast like a Pharisee of your Calvinist superiority ( by grace of course ).
Christ prayed that all be One in Him. He wants unity and you want division. You do not have the mind of Christ.
You prove everyday that you are not elect as you don’t do the works of an elect person.
Kelvin, don’t talk about how we should be grateful for God saving a few when He could send everyone to hell. According to your system, HE MADE THEM SINNERS!
Your god hates a baby in the womb who has never done anything wrong. His wrath burns hot against the little child and he purposes to give him flocks and herds in this life only to give him hell in the end.
You Calvinists are like Stockholm Syndrome victims. You had better love your ogre god. You don’t have any choice. Like Stockholm victims, you hold the gun on the other hostages while the crook goes to take a leak. You suck up to the criminal out of white fear. You turn against your fellow hostages hoping to be spared their fate.
We are what we love. You love your god. You are like him.
Jim, and your God can’t save you without your help. He helps you save yourself. He can give you the special juju to get you started, but can’t get you to the end. You got to get there, and if you don’t get there, well then you don’t get there. . You guys never talk about the mercy of God, or faith. Its always works and love, sacraments. John doesn’t even mention the Lord’s supper. There was a reason for that. The tendency in the church to worship the sacraments instead of God. Only 4 verses in all the Epistles on the Lord’s supper, but you make it an event in itself, a sacrifice for your sins. You talk about our God, but your God is a piece of bread, and the mother of our Lord. Oh ya, you love your works more than God’s mercy. God bless
Kelvin,
“Jim, and your God can’t save you without your help”
I know. He doesn’t want to. He doesn’t want to save mute spectators. Instead, he has sovereign chosen to save only those who accept his offer and love him.
You belched out sulphur when you hissed,
” your God is a piece of bread,”
Your Eucharist is efficacious only for the elect.
” and the mother of our Lord”
Calvinism says the elect need no intercessory prayer.
“Oh ya, you love your works more than God’s mercy”
The elect don’t need to worry about works.
Your doctrine of election destroys the entire Christian life. You need to start talking about it and not putting out a smokescreen on bread, Mary or works. Talk about what you really believe; ELECTION.
Then you squeak out a little
“God bless”.
I am so touched! You said “God Bless” but we all know what your heart really says.
.
Western Schism ” the Babylonian captivity” Pope Benedict XVI commenting on 1309, 3 different Popes claimed Peter’s chair ” For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole ob ejective form-the true church, the truss pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.” Right out of the horses mouth. Infallible indeed! This was only the tip of the iceberg for the Reformers. They knew these abuses had gone on for centuries. So they went to what has always the source of the gospel message, the word of God. Salvation is in the gospel, thats why Paul said he came to preach the Gospel. Roman Catholicism has always been a false church, always.
Forget the Pope Kelvin!
Tell us about your baby-in-the-womb hating god.
Tell us about your “doctrine of grace”. Explain how a God who is ALL love can love only some. Tell us about LIMITED ATONEMENT.
You are just trying to distract us. Get honest and tell us about yourself.
Are you supra or infra? ( It doesn’t really matter, does it?) Your deity doesn’t want all men saved. He just fibs in the Bible but he really has a secret decree that says just the opposite of the Bible.
James, you can go to CRTA, center for Reformed theology and read the decrees. Suffice it to say God according to the secret council of His will has predestined some to etenal life, and foreordained others to damnation. He ordains evil and yet isnt responsible for it. Peter said ” this man delivered over by the predetermined plan of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.” See Jim, God ordained all the evil given to our savior, yet the men who killed Him were responsible. Go figure. I know you are in love with libertarian free will, but man’ s nature is sinful by hereditary right, he is dead in sins, and only God can quicken him to life. Jonah says Salvation is from the Lord. The bible never talks about ” For God so loved the world that He gave them all sufficient grace to choose whether or not to enter into sanctifying grace, but not enough grace to keep all these things in a state of sanctifying grace since He hss not predestined them to glory and therefore withheld from them the final grace of perseverance that would have prevented them losing the state of grace.” Jim think about that. If you can understand what I just said, you will be a Calvinist tomorrow, and no longer a Catlick. Lol blessings my friend.
Jim, I’ll let Paul explain it to you. ” for though the the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His CHOICE would stand, not BECAUSE OF WORKS but because of Him who calls.” You said explain ho a God ALL love can love only some.” Take it up with God. He can love who He wants, He’s God. And the fact that He has mercy on some, when all deserve hell by hereditary right is mercy. Tel you buddies CK, and Bob, it got nothing to do with works. Here is what CK said to me ” Then God leads the elect through the narrow gate” Even an unbeliever steeped in idolatry and Mary worship can speak truth. Jim, ” What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience VESSELS PREPARED FOR DESTRUCTION.? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He had PREPARED BEFOREHAND for glory, even us whom He CALLED.” Romans 9:22. He is God Jim, its all about His glory. And He gets the glory when He saves, and He gets the glory when He condemns those prepared for destruction. God ordains everything and yet He is not morally responsible for evil. I can’t explain it, I accept it by faith. Your God sits in a tabernacle as a piece of bread, and sometimes as a small little baby in the arms a huge statue of the Queen of heaven. I’ll bet the women’s liners like that Jesus. Our God sits on high in majesty, above all heavens and earth, Savior and King of His people, risen, declared Son of God with power and glory. We turn our faces to heaven when we pray. When I watch a Catholic service they all look down or at the wafer, always sad. Paul says rejoice in the Lord always and again I said rejoice! The Savior HAS COME and the next time it won’t be for judgment, but to take the train to Zion. Get on board Jim, the motor is running. Hallelujah! Blessings always my friend.
Jim asked are you supra or infra. Adam was in a covenant of Works. It was gracious for God to create him. He sinned Jim, he broke a covenant,fell morally, not ontologically. The medieval theologians set out to find their sinful pollution in the creation of God by requiring pre fall grace. So God’s creation was flawed. Lombard blamed God for his sinful pollution. He had a CK mentality and thought his works were pretty spiffy. Just a little concupiscence, no problem remaining. You know one’s sanctification will justify them. Jesus was the second Adam, and he didn’t just return us to the garden Jim and leave us on our own. He became our substitute and did for us what we couldn’t do for ourselves. He was born under the law, and fulfilled it. I couldn’t live a perfect life, which the law requires, but Jesus did it for me and He died on the cross, FFTRROTL in us 8:3, cancelled out all the legal decrees against me, and gave me eternal life. It is finished, and now the true church witnesses to a past event, the gospel. K
Catholic interlockers Horton ” At the heart the gospel is solo Christo ( Christ alone). Rome has always maintained that Christ is the necessary ground of our salvation; what the solo adds is that He is also the sufficient ground of our salvation. There is no blessing or. Merit, no basis for hope that can be found outside of Christ, even in the Father or the Holy Spirit. In one of the most eloquent summaries of the whole gospel, Calvin nearly breaks into song on this point. So there is no moving on from Christ, as he is clothed in the gospel, to a higher truth or way of ascent. God has descended all the way to us and accomplished everything we need in his son. The Apostle doesnt say he was sent to help us attain righteouness but himself to be our righteouness, Calvin reminds us.” And this is the issue between the false gospel of Rome, and the gospel of scripture. K
Kelvin and walter
Jim, funny, way off, stupid, wrong, but funny. Lol
Did you think they were real actors Kevin?
All this back and forth just proves the theory that if you torture the data long enough, you can make Scripture say what ever you want it to say. That’s the beauty of sola scriptura. And without a strong central episcopate, everybody can get away with it!
” All of this back and forth just proves the theory if you torture data long enough, you can make scripture say whatever you want” I agree whole heartily. Look at the RC, they been torturing scripture for centuries and mad the handmaid of Jesus who called the Lord her savior Queen of heaven, mediatrix of all graces, born without sin, assumed into heaven, and one Pope committed the whole church into her hands. Its amazing what happens when you torture data long enough, ” you make scripture say whatever you want”
Zat so? And all this time I thought it was Apostolic tradition instead of Scripture. My bad.
” and all this time I thought it was Apostolic tradition and not scriptue” Thats Tim’s whole point, the church was united on doctrine at Nicea because of the collegiality of Bishops and Apostolic tradition was a commitment to the word of God. Then came the Roman Catholic church, the apostasy with it’s King Bishop and it’s own tradition. And here is the point of all time, when tradition is elevated above the word of God you end up with sacrament worship, added mediators, sacrifice of the Mass, and sanctification before justification. If you are at all a student of church history, the Roman Catholic church was unrecognizable as a Christian church 400years before the Reformation. I cited Ratzingers words in an earlier post today describing it. The truth is Christ’s church will never be Basilicas, gold, 30,000 robes, an earthly king, ritual. You will find it in
all humility in many lands, of many peoples, and it will always have the gospel alone as its focus, in word and sacrament. It will resemble Christ.
“The truth is Christ’s church will never be Basilicas, gold, 30,000 robes, an earthly king, ritual. ”
You forgot the Partridge in a Pear Tree.
“The truth is Christ’s church will never be Basilicas, gold, 30,000 robes, an earthly king, ritual. ”
You forgot the Partridge in a Pear Tree.
Me – what about expensive suits and bling?
Bob said –
All this back and forth just proves the theory that if you torture the data long enough, you can make Scripture say what ever you want it to say. That’s the beauty of sola scriptura. And without a strong central episcopate, everybody can get away with it!
Me – exactly. Who’s to say the Gnostics, Arians or any other heresy is wrong? Based on Tim’s research, no one with real authority decided anything. It seems truth is only revealed by private revelation as we can’t trust anyone before us got anything it right except Calvin and Luther (of course Luther is wrong only when he doesn’t agree with Calvin)
” based on Tim’s research no one with any authority decided anything.” What? He told you more than once Nicea had unity of doctrine without a Pope. A coegiallity of Bishops. He is telling you everything was decided without a central episcopate. Im convinced as I said many times that you read Roman doctrine, believe the opposite, and arrive at biblical truth. This is a classic example. You state exactly opposite of what Tim told you happened. And scripture comes thru hearing the word of God. I have always believe when Catholics hear scripture Satan turns it around in their head. Thats why when we say justification, you hear sanctification. When we say the scripture says one mediator, you hear pray to Marry and the saints. 2 Thess 2:11.
“based on Tim’s research …”
Everytime Tim breaks wind, Kevin thinks it’s a revelation from God.
Jim, that was CK’ quote about Tim’s research. Get some glasses old man. Lol k
Im thankful for the Reformation this day as I read a sermon by John Mac Arthur on God’s grace. They returned us to the meaning of God’s grace, complete unmerited favor. Grace is used 150 times in the NT. We are told we stand in it. John 1:16 says we have received grace upon grace, which means we have an endless supply from God. We are told where sin increases grace abounds the more. In 1 Peter 1:2 he says may grace be ours in the fullest measure. Thank God this day that God gives us his grace in an endless supply freely, and that nothing can separate us from God’s grace, not even our sin. Thank God this day for the Protesters who challenged Roman Catholicism which said grace was the means of exchange on the church merit system. Thank God for the unmerited favor of God, and pray for the salvation of those who must go to a sacrament to merit its increase. God bless.
Kevin, do you expect people to respond to this? Or are you just preaching to hear yourself preach?
Tim, I was taking to a friend last night who was an ex Catholic. And I was telling him that in dialoging wit RC’ s they hate the word elect. And he said the idea of being chosen or elect of God is a repuduation to their system.He pointed out to me tha Paul says in 2 Timothy 10 ” For this reason I endure all things for the sake of the elect” He doesnt say the church, but the elect. He goes on to say that it is a trustworthy statement, that if we have died with Him, we will also live with Him and when we are faithless He remains faithful. K
” He doesnt say the church, but the elect. ”
And your point is?
” If you are at all a student of church history, the Roman Catholic church was unrecognizable as a Christian church 400years before the Reformation.”
If the RCC was not the Christian Church between 400 AD and 1100 AD, then who was? What is the name of these people? Where were they from? I would like to know so that I may research these people……please?
Sunnybrook Community Bible Church on 3rd and Hamilton, Billiings, Montana.
Those guys were considered Cheyenne, weren’t they? Or were they Crow? Yeah…..I’m pretty sure that they burned incense but they didn’t burn candles. And their sacrifice is REALLY harsh. They pierce their chest muscles with bone and tie leather ropes to them and lift them up on poles. Egads!
Bob, Some perspective for you. The Reformers, all of them including us, have always considered ourself catholic but not because of a connection to the Roman Catholic church, Roman being specific not universal, but because we were members of the church that had always professed true religion. When Rome excommunicated the Reformers, it excommunicated itself from the true catholic church and bput itself under Paul’s anathema in Galatians 1:9. Familiarize yourself with the book of Galatians because the people Paul was addressing were those trying to undermine the doctrine of jbfa. Those like your church trying to add doing to justification. In fact the whole book is the antithesis between hearing by faith and works. Hope this helps blessings.
KEVIN–
Why do you and Tim keep dodging this question? The reason I need to know the answer to this is so that I can research these people and why they were NOT considered Roman Catholic. I simply cannot find anyone during that time that was not considered Roman Catholic. There has to be some documentation of these people–people who did not worship the Mass, pray intercession through the saints, burn candles in their churches, venerate Mary, etc.
You and Tim are the church history authorities on this blog.
You must know who they are since you claim they existed.
Bob, its amazing how you and CK always show up together, how do you do that ? I don’t think we dodged the question. You say ” you need to research these people and why they weren’t Roman Catholic” Why did they need too be Roman Catholic? Being in union with the true head Jesus Christ is what saves a person, not being in union with a church or a man, you agree? I’ve told you churches don’t connect us to God by joining them, He meets us in the gospel thru the Spirit, when and where of His choosing. I believe we answered that question. The church is called the universal catholic church ( as opposed to Roman which is specific) in many countries and many peoples. Those who profess true religion, superintended by the Holy Spirit. You asked what those people who make up the universal church are called, and we said Christians. Wouldn’t you agree that Christ’s church is made up of all the individuals thru history who professed true religion. We are the Temple of the Holy Spirit and the body of Christ. Christ’s physical body isn’t available to us, it is in heaven. He has incorporated us into His body thru the Spirit. I don’t believe in a universal physical church. I believe in physical churches. We see them in Jerusalem, Corinth, Africa, Bethany bible church, Reformed Presbyterian, Baptist, etc. Where ever the word of God is preached rightly and the sacraments are administered rightly. You said ” there has to be documentation of these people that did not worship the Mass” I guarantee you they didn’t worship the Mass, but worshiped God in Spirit and in truth at the communion table. Last time I checked you can’t be saved by worshiping bread ( the mass). There is documentation on these people. But you will have to leave a “parochial” mentality, go our the Roman church doors, find a history book, and find the names of the people whom the Roman Catholic church persecuted and killed for not submitting to worshiping the death wafer, or confess the Pope as head. Wherever you find these killed people, you will find church. There is plenty documentation. Bob, you and CK really need to read Tim’s article ” the rise of Roman Catholicism” I mean if your going to have this discussion, don’t you think you should read that article. It will answer allot of our questions. ” You said you and Tim are church history authorities on this blog” Tim is a church historian. I am by no measure consider myself a church historian. I think if you took ten minutes and read his article, it would answer many of your questions. ” You must know who they are since you claimed they existed” We told you who they are, you just think you are in that church, and you don’t realize that your not. But like Walt, Tim, Eric W, Bob S, and many others, once they study the word of God, they realized this. Blessings.
where’s CK?
BOB – Kevin has this crazy idea I’m his ex friend Debbie and now he seems to think we (CK and BOB) are also the same person which would really make you Debbie. It’s crazy I know, but par for the course. Once he gets this imbedded in his mind there is no convincing him otherwise. Paranoia will destroy yah!
Protestants, thought you might like this. Habitual grace, sanctifying grace is the means of exchange on the church merit system. Here is how it works, ” For God so loved the world that He gave them all sufficient grace to choose whether or not to enter into sanctifying grace, but not enough grace to keep all these things in a state of sanctifying grace since He has not predestined them to glory and therefore withheld from them the final grace of perseverance that would have prevented them from losing the state of grace.” How good is that description of RC convolution. K
Didn’t you just post the exact same bit of silliness on Green Baggins today? You are really proud of it. From where did you copy and paste it?
Jim, does that just sum up your semi pelagian false gospel, or what. Best quote ever. The people at Green Baggins were raving about it. All the so called “Catholic scholars” at their universities and seminaries should have to read that one. They’ll transfer to Westminster tomorrow and believe the biblical gospel. You know what my dad told me one time Jim when I got my degrees, don’t let school get in the way of your education in life. Roman Scholastics indeed. God Bless
Kevin,
That description is the RC John 3:16…too long for a poster at the ball game
Eric W, actually I was contemplating that, but you’re right!
KEVIN–You said “I guarantee you they didn’t worship the Mass, but worshiped God in Spirit and in truth at the communion table.”
If they did it side by side with Catholics in the same church, then they went through the motions with the others. By yours and Tim’s definition of idolatry, they were idolaters as well. It doesn’t matter if they worshipped in Spirit and Truth, they bowed down to the bread, they prayed the prayers of consecration and I guarantee you they said AMEN. That makes them idolaters right along with them.
Bob, I dont have a defenition of idolatry, the scripture does. Worshiping any created thing as God. Transubstantiation is idolatry, and you provide proof ” who worship the Mass” Scripture says ” out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” Those who worshiped God in an accepable way were saved, and those who didnt werent. Its above my pay grade to tell you who was an idolator and who wasnt. Im not God. But the Mass is the most abominable thing and has sent many men and women to hell. Catholics call it the summit of worship. But it violates God in so many ways. It undermines the sufficiency of His one time sacrifice, it undemines jbfa, and is blatant idolatry. God bless.
Kelvin,
You define idolatry as,
“Worshiping any created thing as God.”
Do you worship Jesus? All of Him? Or just His divine nature? Are you a Nestorian?
IF, IF, IF, the Eucharist is what the Catholic Church says it is, why not worship?
It all hinges on this “IF”. Weeks ago I told you this. You didn’t address, probably because that irritating mosquito, Eric W butted in and stole your show.
You can belch, “bread worship and death wafer” from here to doomsday. But that doesn’t prove anything.
I say it is the Body of Christ. You say it isn’t. I have the words of the Bible. You have those of John MacArthur.
Jim, In the words of my friend the mosquito. You can know that the bread isn’t the physical body of Jesus, “look at it!”
Jim, you are so funny. Jonathan is giving a diatribe on how he thinks the Reformed are Nestorian, and you come on here throwing the term around. It isn’t Nestorian to act with one nature and not the other. K
Jim asked ” do you worship Jesus only His divine nature, or all of Him. I worship all of Him thru theSpirit, since ee were incorprated into His body thru the Spirit. I worship Him as my covenental head. Kina like a monarch with his subjects, or husband and wife. When Peter useslparticipating in the divinenatures, it means koininia, fellowship. But there in no fusion of essence, or wills. We arent all being fetched back into the God head into one big Trinity. We become not divine, but more truly human, in all holiness and righteouness. We became not what He is, but what He became to us. Unlike all the Pantheist on CCC, little tentacles of the Trinity. Only the doctrine of analogy can save us from the error of Platonism. Remember Genesis, the greatest longing of man was to be God. Catholics forget we got bit by the snake James. Participation should be understood as metaphors that bear witness of the intimacy of that relation, but misled if taken more literally. He clothing, jurdicial, accounting, familial, bodily etc. Are analogy. Christ historical body isnt available to us. New life is the result of justifying verdict the one receives thru faith, by the effectual calling and work of the Spirit. Rome is asceticism and mysticism the step by step return from material to spiritual. Christian Pantheism seems all to relevant to contemporary theology. It sets off the organic and intrinsic, against the forensic and extrinsic. So in Catholicism the incarnation is carried on in the church as the divine-human life and descends from Christ as naturaly as humanity from Adam. So Christ saves not by what He did, but who He is. Hopes this helps Jim.
KEVIN–
You said: “Its above my pay grade to tell you who was an idolator and who wasnt. Im not God.”
And practically in the same breath you said in the next sentence: “But the Mass is the most abominable thing and has sent many men and women to hell.”
I guess you don’t have to be God to tell if anyone has been sent to hell, but you can’t tell if they are idolaters?
“That don’t make no sense.” –O Brother, Where art thou?
Bob, I think you confused. I said I couldnt tell ( because scrpture says man looks on the outside and God looks on the heart) who through history approached the communion table properly, and who approahed it in a Rman Catholic way. Like Tim has pointed out, and I would agree, a Christian in the Catholic church would be a bad Catholic. Because someone who submits to ” every word” of the church, which one must to be saved, is by no means a biblical Christian. I personally believe the monolithic infant baptism implemented by Constantine for the state was the Roman religion’s hook. The predominant practice in the early church was adult baptism following regeneration, repentance and faith.. Roman baptism ex opere operato is the hook into the the whole process where Catholics are told their salvation cant come outside the acts of the church ex opere operato. So instead of Christ being the sufficient righteouness for heaven thru faith alone in Christ alone, Catholics must accumulate that righteouness thru sacraments of new law. But God offered free grace to the weak thru the sacraments, not merit for the strong which Rome falesly teaches. Look at my earlier post on sanctifying grace and the convoluted process of salvation in the Roman religion. K
Only puking and pussing out blasphemy is Kevin’s pay grade.
Jim, never got to retort on the Catholic version of For God so love the world ……. I posted?
Bob, CK, Jim, I wanted to provide maybe the best diatribe ever on the Mass. I suggested to Tim a year or so ago, I believe he read it and agreed. The great Reformed theologian John Knox giving this public dissertation. ” A Vindication of the Doctrine that the sacrifice of the Mass is Idolatry” I hope you all will google it and read it. It is a must read before you decide to kneel at your next Mass. It is robust, Scripturally impeccable and powerful. Here is one sentence that I pulled out because we are always aced how we know the bible says the Mass is idolatry. ” And that is the principle idolatry when our inventions we defend to be righteous in the sight of God” Transubstantiation is that invention. Knox gives an instructive comparison when in 1 Samuel Saul ( the king) disobeyed the Lord and offered the sacrifice in place of Samuel against the commandment of God, and had spared the King and people he was instructed to destroy. Even though in his eyes his intention was right, Samuel told him it was idolatry in the eyes of the Lord. I ask you all to take the time to read this. God bless
Jim wrote:
probably because that irritating mosquito, Eric W butted in and stole your show.
flying by for a bleeding death wafer…when are you going to prove that the flesh and blood of eucharistic miracles are from Jesus of Nazareth ? Peekaboo Jesus !
Sorry Earwax,
I didn’t see you lurking there.
Eric W – when you going to prove the bible is inpired? Paper and font looks the same as any other book
CK, let me get this right, you need proof that the bible is inspired. Wow. Scripture says to the one who is perishing it is foolishness, but to the one being saved it is the bread of life.
You know what I’m getting at Kevin. Don’t be coy. Eric W asked us to prove the Eucharist is Jesus. It looks like bread therefore it can’t be Him. I’m just applying the same standards you dudes demand on all things inspired and miracles.
Now you are talking….
“A Vindication of the Doctrine that the sacrifice of the Mass is Idolatry” by John Knox.
It is about time we get some of the real true patriots ringing the minds of these poor Catholic boys!
Let them read a little Knox!
Amen brother. I hope they will read it and Tim’ s article “The rise of Roman Catholicism” but I think there is 2 chances sim and none, and slim left town an hour ago. K
Bob said:
“BOB
November 12, 2014 at 5:07 pm
where’s CK?”
Hopefully home reading the Scriptures!
I’m off to Southeast Asia in the early morning. Back in 10 days.
Let me leave a little bit of love with the Catholic boys…
“Arminianism teaches: ‘… and as many as believed were ordained to eternal life.’
THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘AND AS MANY AS WERE ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED.’ (Acts 13:48)”
Read the Scriptures and learn the truth!
Yep. That’s the beauty of Sola Scriptura. What ever the Scriptures say to you is the truth. Thus Arianism.
What? Sola scriptura Arianism, please explain? Were the Bereans Arian when they were searching the scripture to make sure what Paul was teaching was right. Isaiah 8 ” to the law and to the testimony. God has always made clear to His people what He wants them to know. He gave us ears, minds, and language. Scripture is perspicuous, not that everybody can pick up the book of Habakuk and understand evrything, but with the help of the Spirit we can understand scripture. We dont need a guy in a mitre who relies on the same language, with a fallible mind to tell us what Scripture says. We listen to our teachers, but in the end 1 Johnn 2:27. Romans 10:17 tells us faith comes thru hearing the word of God. The RC has a history of keeping the word from people. The Reformation changed that.
Kevin said – What? Sola scriptura Arianism, please explain? Were the Bereans Arian when they were searching the scripture to make sure what Paul was teaching was right. Isaiah 8 ” to the law and to the testimony. God has always made clear to His people what He wants them to know. He gave us ears, minds, and language.
Me – So anyone that looked at the Old Testament and didn’t agree with Paul would be right in starting their own church? The Old Testament points to Christ only if one was willing to trust Paul’s authority . Under SS those that didn’t agree with all that Paul taught would be required to follow the “Holy Spirit” and start their own church if need be.
God also made it clear that not everyone is an apostle, prophet etc.. Jesus left us a hierarchy.
Kevin said – Scripture is perspicuous, not that everybody can pick up the book of Habakuk and understand evrything, but with the help of the Spirit we can understand scripture.
Me – this might be convincing if we didn’t have thousands of denominations teaching very different things using the same Spirit.
You also ignore the fact that until the past few hundred years most people could not read and had to rely on a visible church to teach them. Tell me how did SS worked in the early church?
Like I’ve said so many times you all have to ignore history and common sense to make SS REMOTELY possible. What’s even worse you have twist scripture to try to make sense of it.
kevin
“What? Sola scriptura Arianism, please explain?”
Arius used scripture to formulate and defend his heresy.
Bob, yet a Pope in 1950 finding no support from his curia, and none from the word of God , speaks from his chair Marry aasumed into heaven. And you swallow it hook line and sinker by implicit faith in a church. But one cant understand God’ s word without a Pope. Like I said churches dont connect us to Go by jojning them. Christ meets us thr the Gospel, his word, thru the power of the Spiritvwhere He chooses. No church owns God, nor be a continuation od His incarnation and atonement, His unique finished ministry. We can carry on His mission, obey Him, imitate Him, preach His gospel, but not carry on His atonement. Nowhere does it ever say the church is a continuation of His incarnation. Paul uses church as a metaphor for His body.
WALT says: “Read the Scriptures and learn the truth!”
Ok, but remember, you axed for it:
“A Vindication of the Doctrine that the sacrifice of the Mass is Biblical.” by Marty Barrack
The Old Testament
God Raises His Covenant Children
Jesus introduced the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist. It did not exist during the days of the Old Testament. However, our Father in heaven gradually prepared us to receive it. These Old Testament accounts describe pre-figurations of the Holy Eucharist.
Abel
The earliest shadow of the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood was Abel, the younger son of Adam and Eve. Cain murdered the good shepherd Abel. The Lord told Cain, Gn 4:10 “The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to Me from the ground.” The Book of Hebrews reminds us of, Heb 12:24 “… [Christ’s] sprinkled Blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel.”
Melchizedek
Melchizedek pre-figured Christ. When Abram returned from his victory over Chedorlaomer, Gn 14:18 “Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High …” to bless Abram, pre-figuring the bread and wine consecrated by a priest at Mass. The Book of Hebrews tells us, Heb 7:2 “[Melchizedek] is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem [shalom], that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever.”
Moses
Moses, the first Israelite priest, read the Torah to all of the six hundred thousand Israelite people assembled at the foot of Mt. Sinai, and threw the blood of sacrificed oxen on the people, saying Ex 24:8 “Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you.” Jesus said at the Last Supper, Mt 26:28 “This is my blood of the covenant.”
Ex 34:29 “When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, with the two tables of the testimony in his hand as he came down from the mountain … the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God … he put a veil on his face.” Jesus comes to us veiled, under the appearance of bread and wine. We could not stand the superbrilliant light of His full glory compared to our own souls darkened by sin.
The Harvest
In ancient Israel, the Spring harvest consisted of grain or wheat. Bread has long been the symbol of the Spring harvest. The Autumn harvest was mostly grapes and olives. Grape wine and olive oil were symbols of the Autumn harvest. Bread and wine. God commanded, Lv 23:12-13 “You shall offer a male lamb a year old without blemish as a burnt offering to the Lord. And the cereal offering with it shall be two tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil … and the drink offering with it shall be of wine.” Priests anoint with oil. Torah unites bread and wine, and the priest, with the sacrifice of the lamb.
Tabernacle Sacrifice
Bread of the Presence
The Bread of the Presence, in the ancient Tabernacle and later in the Temple, 1 Kgs 7:48 prefigured Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.
In the Tabernacle God commanded Moses, Ex 25:8 “Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst.” In the sanctuary, in the ark of the covenant, God told Moses, Ex 25:22 “There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you…” God added, Ex 25:30 “You shall set the bread of the Presence on the table before me always.” Jesus told us, Mt 28:20 “I am with you always.”
Abimelech the priest gave David this sacred bread. 1 Sam 21:6 “So the priest gave him the holy bread; for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence.” Jesus taught us that it was for all His disciples. Mt 12:1 “At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck ears of grain and to eat. … [Jesus] said to them, ‘Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence … I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.”
Jesus showed us what was greater than the Temple. Lk 22:19 “He took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.'”
Blood of the Lamb
During Moses’ time the priests sacrificed in the Tabernacle, a portable house of God in the wilderness. After Solomon built the First Temple, it became the place of sacrifice. The highest form of Hebrew worship was sacrifice, not prayer alone, just as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the highest form of Catholic worship. A priest is one who offers sacrifice. The Catholic priest is the counterpart not of the rabbi, but of the ancient Jewish priest who offered bloody sacrifices. The deacon, who reads the Gospel, is the rabbi’s counterpart.
The Old Testament sacrifice of a lamb, as opposed to any other animal, was important. The lamb did not resist, run away, or even cry out. Isaiah had foretold that the Lamb of God would do the same, Is 53:7 “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.”
The Jewish priests, before sacrificing the lamb, always asked, “Do you love this lamb?” If the family didn’t love the lamb there would be no sacrifice. Jesus three times asked Peter, Jn 21:15 “Do you love Me?” Jesus allowed Peter to replace his triple denial with a triple affirmation that he did indeed love the Sacrificed Lamb.
The family would place the lamb into the hands of the priest. When we give something to God we place it in His hands. Jesus’ last words on the Cross were, Lk 23:46 “Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit!”
The priest and the head of the family then prayed together that God would accept the blood of the innocent lamb for the sins of that family for the entire year, just as the Lamb of God shed His Blood to redeem the sins of all His human family. The Catholic priest says, “Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.”
The head of household then cut the lamb’s throat with a sharp bronze knife while the priest caught the lamb’s blood in a large bronze bowl. The priest then made seven complete trips around the altar, sprinkling the blood from the lamb on each of the four “horns.” Then he took the lamb’s body and placed it on the altar and started the ritual fire. With a big fire and a small lamb, the sacrifice was over quickly. The smoke rose from the altar. If the wind blew the smoke away and dispersed it, the priest told the family that its offer was rejected, and that it should repent and come back the following year. But if the smoke drifted upward, higher and higher until it disappeared from view, the priest told the family that God had accepted the sacrifice.
Before the great tabernacle sacrifice, Jewish priests washed their hands in a bronze laver, or basin. Ps 26:6 “I wash my hands in innocence, and go about Thy altar, O Lord.” Today the Catholic priest washes his hands saying inaudibly, Ps 51:2 “Lord, wash away my iniquity; cleanse me from my sin.”
The first priest attended at a great golden lampstand with seven oil lamps, called a menorah. It was dark in the tabernacle, and the menorah gave light.
The second priest attended at the table of showbread. God had commanded Lv 24:5 that the Jewish priests, from Aaron forward, place twelve loaves of bread on a golden table “before the Lord.” On each sabbath, the priests ate the bread which had been set in place on the preceding sabbath. This bread was to be eaten by the priests in a sacred place since it was Lv 24:9 “most holy” among the offerings to the Lord. God had said, Ex 23:18 “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread.” During the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass the Catholic priest consecrates unleavened bread on the altar which becomes Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and is consumed by the royal priesthood as the most holy offering in the New and Everlasting Covenant.
The third priest served at the altar of incense. It looked like a small altar of sacrifice, with the same four horns. On it was a bronze laver. The priest would take a red-hot burning ember from the fire in which the lamb had been sacrificed, put it in the basin, and pour some incense on it, that his prayers might have a fragrant scent and go straight up to God. On solemn occasions Catholics spread incense about the altar as an act of reverence and purification. The smoke rising to heaven represents our own desire to have our prayers ascend heavenward in God’s sight. Ps 141:2 “Let my prayer be counted as incense before Thee, and the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice.”
God told Moses to place the Torah in the Ark of the Covenant, which in turn was placed within a tabernacle. God commanded, Ex 27:20 “You shall command the people of Israel that they bring to you pure beaten olive oil for the light, that a lamp may be set up to burn continually.” All was placed within the tabernacle. By night, there was always a fire over the tabernacle, Ex 40:38 This began the idea of an eternal lamp beside the Jewish tabernacle. A thousand years later the Temple lamp miraculously continued to shine for eight days with only one day’s supply of oil. Catholics continue this ancient Israelite tradition by placing a lighted candle beside the tabernacle in which the consecrated Hosts repose.
In the center of the tabernacle was a room called the Holy of Holies. Once a year the cohen gadol, the high priest, alone would enter that room. In it was the Ark of the Covenant. Inside the ark were the two stone tablets with the Ten Commandments, a golden bowl of manna, and the five Torah scrolls. The Torah was a witness against the Israelites, Dt 31:26 but above it all was God’s solid gold mercy seat, with a crown and two cherubim kneeling in prayer. Above the mercy seat, between the two cherubim, was a brilliant light, the shining glory of God. Ex 25:22 “From above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you.” When the priest saw that light he took a huge cup of blood and sprinkled it until it was empty. Jewish tradition holds that not one drop of the blood of sacrifice ever touched the mercy seat or the cherubim; it all went into the bright light of God’s glory. Jesus said, Jn 8:12 “I am the light of the world.” Jesus’ covenant family gave Him their imperfect sacrifices, and He gave them His perfect sacrifice.
The Todah Sacrifice
The ancient Jews had a special ritual meal called the Todah (Hebrew: thanks) (pronounce: Taw-DAH). Although the Todah sacrificed an animal, it was greater than other animal sacrifices because it added the suffering of one’s own life. David wrote, Ps 40:6,8 “Burnt offering and sin offering Thou hast not required. … I delight to do Thy will, O my God; Thy law is within my heart.” Again, David wrote, Ps 51:17 “The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit.” And again, Ps 69:30 “I will praise the name of God with a song; I will magnify Him with thanksgiving. This will please the Lord more than an ox or a bull with horns and hoofs.” Isaiah spoke the words of God, Is 1:11 “I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams.” God called instead for a baptism: Is 1:16 “Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from My eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good.”
The seventy elders who went up with Moses to see God offered the Todah: Ex 24:11 “They beheld God, and ate and drank.” Twelve centuries later, twelve apostles beheld God, and ate and drank as Jesus prepared to offer His Todah sacrifice: Lk 22:19 “He took bread, and when He had given thanks He broke it…” From the beginning, Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity has been called Holy Eucharist (Greek: eucharistia, thanksgiving).
The ancient rabbis believed that when the Messiah would come all sacrifices except the Todah would cease, but the Todah would continue for all eternity. In 70 AD the Temple fell to earth and all of the bloody animal sacrifices stopped. Only the Todah remains, the eucharistia, the Final Sacrifice at which the last words spoken are Todah l’Adonai, “Thanks be to God.”
Passover
Jesus was pre-figured in the original Passover, when God commanded that Moses tell the Israelites, Ex 12:5-6 “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male … the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs in the evening,” as Jesus the Lamb of God was crucified in dim light. Mt 27:45 God commanded, Ex 12:8 “They shall eat the flesh that night,” and told Moses, Ex 12:12 “I will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt.” But He promised, Ex 12:13 “The blood shall be a sign for you … when I see the blood, I will pass over you.” Most of us know that the original Passover pre-figured the Body and Blood of the crucified Lamb. But there is more to the Passover story.
Pharaoh commanded the death of every Hebrew male infant in Egypt, Ex 1:22 but death passed over Moses. Ex 2:5-10 Twelve centuries later, before Herod commanded the death of every Hebrew male infant in Bethlehem, Mt 2:13 death passed also over Jesus.
The Jewish celebration of Passover has from the beginning been an experience of exile and return, as its participants re-live the experience of the desert and encounter with God. After Jesus was crucified the apostles also experienced a sense of exile in the desert followed by a transforming encounter with God. In this way Jesus is spiritually present in the entire Seder.
The Seder table is different in many ways from the Jewish table setting on all other nights, as the ma nishtano acknowledges. God chose a young Jewish girl, a virgin who lived in Nazareth, to begin the rest of the story. Mary began her own Seder each year as Jews have since time immemorial, by lighting candles to give festive light to the table. Mary also gave us Jesus, the Jn 8:12 light of the world. Jesus has been at every Seder from the first one to this very day, spiritually present in the bread, wine, and lamb.
Bread
Jesus is spiritually present in the bread. It is unleavened, pure as Jesus was pure. It has dark stripes, as His back was striped by Pilate’s scourging. It is pierced, as He was pierced on the Cross. Once it was the bread of life for Israel on the desert, as Jesus is the Jn 6:35 Bread of Life for all mankind. During the Seder, the head of the family takes three pieces of unleavened bread, reminding us of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He breaks in half the second piece, suggesting the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity crucified. He then wraps one of these two pieces, called the afikomen (Hebrew: festival procession), a reminder of Jesus’ constant call, “Follow Me,” in white linen, reminding us of Jesus linen burial cloth, and “buries” or hides it, as Jesus was entombed. Later the youngest at table “resurrects” or finds the afikomen as Jesus rose from the dead. The head of the family then breaks the afikomen and passes it around for all to eat, as Jesus did when He told His apostles, Lk 22:19 “This is My Body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.” In that way, Jesus through the Seder calls us to follow Him into His death and resurrection, to become a new person in Christ.
The unleavened bread also reminds us of the haste with which the Israelites left Egypt. The dough that they were sunbaking on the hot rocks of the Egyptian fields was removed before it could leaven, and so remained flat. It represents our need to remain ever alert and prepared for the day when God calls us to our destiny as Jesus told us, Mt 25:13 “Watch, therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.”
Wine
Jesus is spiritually present in the wine. When the afikomen is broken and passed around for all to eat, Jews drink the third of four cups of wine, called the cup of blessing because it represents the blood of the sacrificed paschal lamb. It is the cup that Jesus gave to His apostles, saying, Lk 22:20 “This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in My Blood.” He did not drink the fourth, the Kalah cup, explaining, Mt 26:29 “I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” But later that evening at Gethsemane, Jesus prayed by moonlight, Mt 26:39 “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me.” After He was captured, Jesus asked Peter, Jn 18:11 “Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given Me?” Many Catholics believe that Jesus drank the last cup on the Cross, Jn 19:29 “They put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop and held it to His mouth. When Jesus had received the vinegar, He said, ‘It is finished’; and He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.”
Lamb
Pasch or pesach in Hebrew means “he passed over.” The paschal lamb recalls the lamb that was sacrificed that its blood might be daubed on the doorposts of every Jewish home, and its body eaten in every Jewish home, that the angel of death might know it as a household of the faithful and pass over. God had originally commanded Ex 12:6 that the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel kill the paschal lambs. When Solomon built the first Temple, Jewish priests sacrificed the paschal lambs there. But after Jesus ascended to heaven and the second Temple fell never to rise again, the Temple sacrifices could no longer be done, so Jews began to represent the paschal lamb with a lamb’s shank bone.
Jesus is spiritually present in the shank bone of the lamb. The Jews in Egypt ate the paschal lamb to be physically redeemed and led to the promised land of Canaan. Catholics for two thousand years have consumed the Body and Blood of the Lamb of God, Jn 1:29 that we might be spiritually redeemed and find the promised kingdom of heaven.
In the ancient days, when the Jewish priest had killed the last lamb of the Passover, he uttered the Hebrew word Kalah, “it is finished.” Moments before He died on the Cross, Jesus said, Jn 19:30 Kalah (it is finished).
The Exodus
After the Passover, with its pre-figuration of Calvary, the Israelite people began their long exodus from the land of Egypt to the promised land of Canaan. God told Moses, Ex 16:4 “I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law or not.” Moses told the Israelites, Ex 16:8 “When the Lord gives you in the evening flesh and in the morning bread to the full…” The “bread from heaven” reminds us of Christ’s words, Jn 6:49 “Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.” The “evening flesh” reminds us of Christ’s sacrifice. Mt 27:45, 50 “Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. … And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.” The “morning bread” reminds us of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
The Israelites gathered up the manna, Ex 16:17 “…some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat.” This reminds us of the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes, Mt 15:37 “And they all ate and were satisfied.” That miracle pre-figured the Holy Eucharist, from which the smallest piece is a full portion of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and which can never run out because Jesus said He would be with us until the end of time. Mt 28:20 As long as a priest lives we Christ’s flock can have all we want.
Elijah
At a time when the land parched from lack of rain, God sent Elijah the Tishbite to the brook Cherith, that is east of the river Jordan, promising, 1 Kgs 17:4 “You shall drink from the brook, and I have commanded the ravens to feed you there.” So Elijah went. 1 Kgs 17:6 “And the ravens brought him bread and meat in the morning, and bread and meat in the evening; and he drank from the brook.”
When the brook dried up God sent Elijah to Zarepath, saying, 1 Kgs 17:9 “Behold, I have commanded a widow there to feed you.” Elijah found the widow and asked her, 1 Kgs 17:10 “Bring me a morsel of bread in your hand.” The widow and her son had virtually no food left and were near starvation. 1 Kgs 17:12 “As the Lord lives,” she said, “I have nothing baked, only a handful of meal in a jar, and a little oil in a cruse; and now, I am gathering a couple of sticks, that I may go in and prepare it for myself and my son, that we may eat it, and die.”
But Elijah told her, 1 Kgs 17:13 “Fear not; go and do as you have said; but first make me a little cake of it and bring it to me, and afterward make for yourself and your son. For thus says the Lord the God of Israel, ‘The jar of meal shall not be spent, and the cruse of oil shall not fail, until the day that the Lord sends rain upon the earth.” The widow did as Elijah said, and she and her son and Elijah ate for many days. 1 Kgs 17:16 “The jar of meal was not spent, neither did the cruse of oil fail, according to the word of the Lord which he spoke by Elijah.”
After that, the woman’s son became ill and died. Elijah carried the woman’s son into the upper room where he had been living and prayed, 1 Kgs 17:21 “Oh Lord my God, let this child’s soul come into him again.” 1 Kgs 17:22 “And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.”
The food brought by the ravens reminds us of the manna, which itself pre-figured the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes. The ravens brought bread, which pre-figured Christ’s Holy Eucharist, and meat, which pre-figured His redemptive sacrifice. The water from the brook which kept Elijah alive pre-figured the living water that flowed from Christ’s side. At Zarepath, Elijah was again fed by a pre-figure of the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes. The widow pre-figures our Blessed Mother, who was a widow on the day of Christ’s sacrifice. Her son pre-figures Christ, who died and rose from the dead.
In the wilderness Elijah was awakened by an angel’s touch. 1 Kgs 19:6 “There was at his head a cake baked on hot stones and a jar of water.” The cake reminds us of the Holy Eucharist. The water, of the water that Jesus turned to wine at Cana Jn 2:9 and then to the Blood of the Covenant in Jerusalem. Mt 26:27 The angel told Elijah, 1 Kgs 19:7 “Arise and eat, else the journey will be too great for you.” Elijah took this food for his forty days’ journey to Horeb, the mountain of God. Jesus fasted forty days in the wilderness while He was tempted by the devil. Mt 4:1 Lest temptation be too great for us, we receive the Holy Eucharist, food for our pilgrim journey to Calvary, the new and true mountain of God.
Finally, Elijah 2 Kgs 2:11 “was carried up in a whirlwind into the sky,” as Jesus Lk 24:51 “was carried up into heaven.”
Elisha
God performed a miracle through the prophet Elisha. 2 Kgs 4:42 “A man came from Baal-shalishah, bringing the man of God bread of the first fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of grain in his sack. And Elisha said, ‘Give to the men, that they may eat.’ But his servant said, ‘How am I to set this before a hundred men?’ So he repeated, ‘Give them to the men, that they may eat, for thus says the Lord, ‘They shall eat and have some left.’ So he set it before them. And they ate, and had some left, according to the word of the Lord.”
Elisha’s miraculous feeding of a hundred men pre-figured Jesus’ Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes.
The Psalms
Jews two thousand years ago knew the 150 psalms by heart, as we know songs today. They were not numbered; they were identified by their first words. If the first words, or any words, from a psalm were quoted, a Jew would be able to quote the rest of it.
Jesus cry on the Cross, Mt 22:46 “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,” reminded those present that His sacrifice fulfilled prophecy. Psalm 22 begins, “My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?” The Jews present on Calvary would have recited from memory the prophetic words, Ps 22:17 “I can count all my bones – they stare and gloat over me; they divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots.”
The Jews present would have recognized Jesus’ final words on the Cross as a Psalm quotation, Ps 31:5, “Into Thy hand I commit my spirit,” and recited from memory King David’s next words, “Thou hast redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God.” They would have continued reciting the psalm until its final words, “Be strong, and let your heart take courage, all you who wait for the Lord!”
Psalm 23 contains the Eucharistic prophecy, Ps 23:5 “Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of my enemies.” As we eat what God gives us, we will fear no evil but dwell in the house of the Lord forever.
Psalm 78 refers to the manna. Ps 78:24 “[God] rained down upon them manna to eat, and gave them the grain of heaven.”
Ezekiel
God pre-figured the Holy Eucharist through the prophet Ezekiel. Ez 3:3 “‘Son of man, eat this scroll that I give you and fill your stomach with it.’ Then I ate it; and it was in my mouth as sweet as honey.” Jesus often used the title, Son of Man, in Matthew 8:20, 12:32, 13:41, 16:27 and 17:9. God had called Ezekiel to eat a figure of the Word of God made flesh.
The New Testament
The Gospels
The New Testament accounts describe the Holy Eucharist as Jesus gave it to us. The term “bread from heaven” becomes fully clear only when we reach the Revelation to John. The Gospels Christ said at Capernaum. Jn 6:51 “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is My Flesh.”
Jewish life is rich in symbolism. The Seder table is filled with symbolic foods. Jesus said, Mt 26:23 “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with Me, will betray Me.” He referred to the urhatz, the first washing; slaves eat quickly without stopping to wash their hands, but now Jews wash their hands in a bowl of warm water as a symbol of their freedom. The moror, bitter herbs which remind Jews that the Egyptians made their ancestors’ lives bitter with hard labor, are dipped in charoset, a sweet mixture of chopped apples, nuts, and wine, to recall that even hard lives have their sweet moments. The matzo is the bread of haste that the Hebrews ate as they fled from Egypt. The karpas, green vegetables, represent the coming of Spring with its renewal of life, symbolizing the journey from slavery to the promised land; Jews dip them in salt water before eating to recall the tears shed along the way. If Jesus had said the Holy Eucharist was a symbol the Jews at Capernaum would instantly have accepted it.
The Jews knew that He was speaking literally. Jn 6:52 “How can this man give us his Flesh to eat?” On other occasions when our Lord spoke of Himself as a Jn 10:9 “door” or a Jn 15:1 “vine,” nobody said, “How can this man be made of wood?” or “How can this man be a plant?” They recognized these as metaphors. But when Jesus insisted, Jn 6:53 “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.” The Jews who heard this said, Jn 6:60 “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” They remembered God’s command to Noah and all mankind, Gn 9:4 “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” God spoke more forcefully to His chosen people. Lv 17:10 “I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.” It was only after Christ’s redemptive sacrifice and the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment that the Apostles saw the full meaning of our Father’s next words. Lv 17:11 “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.” In the Old Covenant our Father in heaven had commanded His children not to eat the blood of animals because we are not to participate in the life of animals. Animals, having no immortal souls, are lower than man in the order of created nature. However, in the New and Everlasting Covenant we consume the Blood of Christ to participate in Christ’s eternal life.
Jesus knew we would need a lot of help to become accustomed to the Holy Eucharist. He performed the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes in the dim light of the original Passover sacrifice Ex 12:6 and of His Crucifixion. Mt 27:45 He performed the four great Eucharistic actions: He took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His apostles to feed the people: Mt 14:15 “When it was evening, the disciples came to him and said, ‘This is a lonely place, and the day is now over; send the crowds away to go into the villages and buy food for themselves.’ Jesus said, ‘They need not go away; you give them something to eat.’ They said to him, ‘We have only five loaves here and two fish.’ And he said, ‘Bring them here to me.’ Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass; and taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of the broken pieces left over.”
The three Gospel narratives of the Last Supper are absolutely consistent. Matthew: 26:26 “This is My Body.” 26:27 “This is My Blood…” Mark: 14:22 “This is My Body.” 14:24 “This is My Blood…” Luke: 22:19 “This is My Body.” 22:20 “This … is the New Covenant in My Blood.” Jesus’ next words instituted the Catholic priesthood: Lk 22:19 “Do this in remembrance of Me.”
Jesus assured the Apostles that the Holy Eucharist is a reflection of the heavenly banquet. Mt 26:29 “I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
After His resurrection, Jesus walked with two disciples to Emmaus. When they arrived, He celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for them; Lk 24:30 “While He was at table with them, He took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them.”
Acts of the Apostles
The apostles celebrated the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist. Acts 2:46 “Day by day, attending the Temple together and breaking bread in their homes…”
The Apostles were visibly religious Jews. They wore the kippah (prayer hat), the tallit (prayer shawl with fringes) and the tephillin (phylacteries). Long after Jesus ascended to the Father, Peter protested that he had never in his life eaten anything unkosher. Acts 10:14 When these Jewish Apostles remembered Christ’s command, Lk 22:19 “Do this in remembrance of Me,” they added it to their synagogue worship. They began with synagogue prayer and Scripture readings, and then went to their homes to celebrate the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood. To this very day, the Introductory Rite and Liturgy of the Word come directly from Jewish synagogue worship. The Liturgy of the Eucharist comes directly from the Apostles’ breaking bread in their homes.
At Troas, Paul spoke all night, but he made sure to receive the Holy Eucharist. Acts 20:7 “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight.” Acts 20:11 “And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed.”
On the Adriatic Sea, at dawn, Paul celebrated Mass for 276 people. Acts 27:35 “…he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat. Then they all were encouraged and ate some food themselves.”
The Epistles
Acts 20:11 “When Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten…” St. Paul explained clearly what “breaking bread” meant. 1 Cor 10:16 “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ?” St. Paul continued, 1 Cor 11:27 “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.” St. Paul in these words confirmed Catholic teaching that the “bread … of the Lord” is truly Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and that the “cup of the Lord” is the same substance: “Whoever … eats the bread or drinks the cup … will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.”
St. Paul added, 1 Cor 11:29 “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the Body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” If we receive the Holy Eucharist without acknowledging, at least in our hearts, that it is His true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, we send ourselves to hell.
The Revelation to John
In the beginning God had said of marriage, Gen 2:24 “Therefore a man … cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Jesus assured us, Jn 6:56 “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” God prepared us first through natural marriage and then through the Holy Eucharist for the supernatural marriage to come at the end of time, Rev 20:7 “For the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride [the Church] has made herself ready; it was granted her to be clothed in … the righteous deeds of the saints.” The Holy Eucharist, through which Christ abides in us and we in Him, will be our wedding feast. Rev 19:9 “Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.”
sac·ra·ment
ˈsakrəmənt/noun
a religious ceremony or act of the Christian Church that is regarded as an outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual divine grace, in particular.
(in the Roman Catholic and many Orthodox Churches) the rites of baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, anointing of the sick, ordination, and matrimony.
(among Protestants) baptism and the Eucharist.
Sacraments are the rites used to sanctifiy.
sanc·ti·fy
ˈsaNG(k)təˌfī/:verb
1)set apart as or declare holy; consecrate.
synonyms: consecrate, bless, make holy, hallow, make sacred, dedicate to God
2)make legitimate or binding by religious sanction.
synonyms: approve, sanction, condone, vindicate, endorse, support, back, permit, allow, authorize, legitimize
3)free from sin; purify.
synonyms: purify, cleanse, free from sin, absolve, unburden, redeem
BOB wrote:
Melchizedek pre-figured Christ. When Abram returned from his victory over Chedorlaomer, Gn 14:18 “Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High …” to bless Abram, pre-figuring the bread and wine consecrated by a priest at Mass.
Response:
The beginning is a very good place to start. Christ belongs to the order of Melchizedek. Is the “priest at Mass” in the order of Melchizedek ? If so, then list some qualifications to be a priest in this order.
Ordained by Christ. Nuff said.
BOB, you wrote:
Ordained by Christ. Nuff said.
This qualification fails because we have no evidence that a Melchizedekian priest was ordained by another Melchizedekian priest.
Hebrews 10 :14 ” For by one offering He perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” 18 “There remain no more sacrifices for sin”
Just the one that is never ending.
No it says one perfected us, and there remains no more sacrifice for sins. It is finished. If its never ending, and you still have Him on the cross then according to 1 corinthians 15 you are still in your sins. A never ending sacrifice cant save you. Verse 14 says one sacrifice PERFECTED us.
Kevin said – No it says one perfected us, and there remains no more sacrifice for sins. It is finished. If its never ending, and you still have Him on the cross then according to 1 corinthians 15 you are still in your sins. A never ending sacrifice cant save you. Verse 14 says one sacrifice PERFECTED us.
Me – I guess Jesus didn’t get the memo. Why would he give us the Lord’s Prayer? It does’t make sense to ask Him to forgive us as we forgive others if we have all been forgiven of all our sins.
CKBob, Walt is right, get a bible and study it. While you are there buy a book by Murray ” Redemption accomplished and applied” You’ ve been trusting Pope to long. Time to study. What does Hebrews 10: 14 mean when it says one sacrifice perfected us CK or Bob? Christ’s sacrifice is a blanket across history. Romans 5:9 and 5:1 says we have been reconciled and justified by his blood, have been justified by faith. Its all in the aorist past participle. We have been reconciled and forgiven all our sins. Hebrews says He put sin away, obtained eternal redemption, and sat down. Now He is at His altar in heaven applying His perfect sacrifice on our behalf as we confess our sins. Read 1 Corinthians 1:30 ” by HIS doing you are in Christ who BECAME to us wisdom, righteouness, sanctification, and REDEMTION. Past tense. He is risen, let Him off the altar and the cross. God bless you K
CK, one of the things Luther realized being a monk was the medieval church had taught grace was stuff injected into a person and that this injection helped one to do theit part. So the medieval idea was you meet God half way in this process and cooporate and in the end if you accumulated enough of this stuff, if you had done enough you were in. But as Luther studied Scripture over a long period of time he realized that grace wasnt stuff injected into nature, but God’ favor from outside of us. The first mention of grace is Noah found favor with God, without merit. Luther ralized after continual trips to the confessional that one could never be inherntly righteous. Catholics are taught that when the Priest turns his back Christ’s wrath is being quelled each time they do the Mass. And if they say enough prayers, do enough penances, attend enough masses they will propitiate tha anger. But the gospel isnt ” do your part” Catholics were taught Jesus is always angry with them and theg must go to other mediators, saints, Mary to prpoitiate that anger. But Luther realized Jesus was the compassionate mediator that took our sins. And that this grace was free to us, forgiveness of our sins, and that His righteouness was counted in our favor, the ” gift” Ephesians 2:8, that came simply by faith. The Reformers realized that the 2nd century church wouldnt recognize the medieval or today’s Catholic church. They had 2 sacraments, no Priest’s, no mediation of other saints, no idolatry of Mary, and no sacrifice of the Mass. To sum up the gospel isnt do youf part, it is Christ did his part and bought us out of slavery and gave us eternal life. He didnt come to make us saveable if we do our part, meeting us half way, but He lived the law in our place and fulfilled all righteouness, giving us the free gift thru simple faith. We continue to confess our sins not to accumulate the righteouness to get to heaven, but to restore ourselves to a right relationship with Him and enjoy His blessings. Our position is already guaranteed by what HE did. Romans 8, 4:16, 1 John 5:13. Works in the new covenat must take their rightful place, our resonable service of Worship. The only legal fiction is thinking you can become internally righteous to get to heaven you cant. Thats why we look only to Him. Blessings.
How does one sacrifice that ended 2000 years ago perfect you 2000 years later?
I guess John’s vision in Revelation was bogus. The Lamb being slain was someone other than Jesus since it ended once and for all about 50 years or so before.
Yeah, and I’m really sure that my sins didn’t even exist 2000 years ago.
KEVIN–
Hebrews 10 :14 ” For by one offering He perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”
“Its all in the aorist past participle. ”
What part of “are being sanctified” do you not understand? That is as present tense as it gets. Oh that’s right, Calvinists don’t believe in sanctification–it’s justification and glorification all wrapped up into one neat little package.
I’ll ask the question once again:
Why would God let you into heaven without you being sanctified?
KEVIN–
You said: “Now He is at His altar in heaven applying His perfect sacrifice on our behalf as we confess our sins.”
And then you say: “He is risen, let Him off the altar and the cross.”
If we let Him off the altar, then how will He be applying His perfect sacrifice on our behalf as we confess our sins?
Bob, oh my gosh. Take an afternoon and read Hebrews. You said ” if we let Him off our altar t hen how will He apply His perfect sacrifice when we sin. Have you heard He is risen! His altar is in heaven. He’ s not up there saying hey dad Bob just did the mass earned a merit, cut him some more grace and justice. 1 John 1 says when we sin we have an advocate with the Father. We confess He applies His perfect sacrifice. The righteous shall live by faith” our sins have been forgiviven , but your right yours havent. Pay as you go. God bless
Bob, There was no Priesthood in the Early church. There were Presbyters and Bishops and deacons. None meant Priests. The word for Priest is hiereus. Its used 400 times in the OT and NEVER appears in the NT There was no sacrificing Priesthood prosiding over a Eucharistic sacrifice, or a confessional. This came later in the Roman Catholic Rhurch when it was institutionalized and paganized. Please see 1 John 2:1, Acts 8:22, Hebrews 7:24-27. These verses make it clear that when we sin we confess directly to God and that Jesus was the only high Priest IN HEAVEN who applies his perfect sacrifice continually on our behalf. We are covered in His righteousness. The bible teaches only the Priesthood of the saints. We can all tell someone their sins are forgiven. Many times when I have shared the gospel and someone has believed on Christ, I assured them by believing the scripture says we are forgiven. We are to confess our sins one to another as brothers and sisters in Christ. But positionally Hebrews is clear, the one sacrifice covered our sins, past, present, and future, a blanket across history, and we have peace now R 5:1, knowing we are reconciled to God. The status of a true believer can never change, and we take assurance given in the scriptures. We are forgiven and saved by what He did, not by what we do. We are not in a state of suspended redeeming which will be determined by how much we cooperate with the special juju. He paid it all and we get the benefits freely by His grace. Thats why it is called good news for the elect. K
Bob, Oh incidentally go read Jerome’s commentary on Bishops and Presbyters on Titus 1:5, he explains the shared setup.
Bob, are you serious? What part of perfected dont you understand. You cant improve on perfected past tense. Those who are being sanctified is j u st describing Christians. Are Christians not being sanctified everyday. But He perfected us past tense because His perfect obedience and sacrifice fulfilled the kaw and paid for o u r sins. Christians stand before God as if we never sinned. But you arent perfected because Christ’s sacrifice is imperfect. He has to do it again and again, even though Paul said in Romans 6 He was never to die again. And its imperfect because you can do 10000 Masses and not have enough sanctifying grace for heaven. It says perfected. And then 10:18 says no more sacrificescfor sin.
Tim, I can’t wait until you address Daniel. Nick the Catholic just wrote a piece on CCC on Daniel 2 and how that has to be the roman church in Nebe’s dream. K
“Nick the Catholic”? Kinda’ like “Nick the Greek”, eh?
Thanks, Kevin,
I’ll take a look. I think Nick is taking the same position as Taylor Marshall, which I briefly addressed in One Kingdom Too Late.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, oh ya thats right. I forgot about One kingdom to late. I’ll go back and reread. Thanks brother
KEVIN–
Are you serious? Look at what you said: “These verses make it clear that when we sin we confess directly to God and that Jesus was the only high Priest IN HEAVEN who applies his perfect sacrifice continually on our behalf.”
And then you turn right around and say: ” We are to confess our sins one to another as brothers and sisters in Christ.”
Which is it, confess directly to God or confess to one another?
Are you saying that if we confess to one another WE can forgive each others sins? That makes US mediators between man and God. That is what priests do.
You said ” There was no Priesthood in the Early church. There were Presbyters and Bishops and deacons.” Yes, they were all ordained–a kingdom of priests. Unless you think they were not???
Who is teaching you this warped history? Paul considered himself a priest: ‘Rom 15:15 I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a PRIEST the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”
I thinks Walt is right, you need to get a bible and read it.
Bob, James 5:16 look it up. The word for minister is not the word for Priest. The word for Priest is Heireus. Its used 400 times in the old testament, and is NEVER used in the NT. The NT teaches the priesthood of the believers, and thar word is cleras, cleric, we are God’s cleras. So the next time you are approached by a ma dressed in some funny garb saying he is a Priest, the poorest child of God should say stand off sir I am a Priest. I do not no what you are since the only mention of vestments in the bible is with the kingdom of satan. But God says I am a Priest, God’s cleras. After you take Walts advice and start studying the scripture, and read James 5:16, its cathartic to confess your sins one to another. Auricular confession isnt in scripture or the early church. Bob, you have to be willing to read other books than Rman Catholic propaganda. God bless as always.
Bob, incidentally, we see in the Priestcraft of Rome on the altar, in the words of consecration, the Priestmakes God, he is Creator of the Creator I the words of Horton. There is none of this magic and idolatry in scripture, A false Priesthood being a Creator of the Creator. What power ascribed to themselves. Pray for them, they are lonely men, lost, and most to be pitied. K
KEVIN–
Paul said he was a PRIEST:
ROMANS15:16 IN THE GREEK
a minister λειτουργός leitourgos
of Christ Χριστός Christos
Jesus Ἰησοῦς Iēsous
to εἰς eis
the Gentiles, ἔθνος ethnos
ministering as a priest ἱερουργέω hierourgeō
HIEROURGEO
I.to minister in the manner of a priest, minister in priestly service
Paul was a priest. The Bible says so.
You also said: ” I do not no what you are since the only mention of vestments in the bible is with the kingdom of satan.”
I guess you think the vestments of the Levitical priests were from the kingdom of satan??
” But God says I am a Priest, God’s cleras.”
That’s good. I’m glad we clerased that up.
You take Walts advice and start studying the scripture a little closer. Kevin, you have to be willing to read other books than Calvanist propaganda. And back to you, God bless.
Bob, You are funny. Before I tellyou what that verse means, I direct you to Eric W last post. Take the trip with him down Hebrews Melchizadec drive, because he is an expert on this. Go for the drive with him. He probably can direct you to his posts on CtC on the subject. Suffice it to say, Christ is a Priest in the order of Melchizadek, He is Priesthood is permanent and saves to the uttermost. Your false Priests ( since there exist no sacrificing Priests in the NT) DIE just like the OT Priests, so their sacrifices cant save just like the OT. Now, the verse you sited is Paul is a minister of the Gospel, who is a Priest in the sense that he offers up the conversions of the gentiles, thru the gospel, to God, so these conversions will be acceptable. This isnt a return to OT sacrifices, or the start of a NT sacrificial system. There are no Priests in the NT. And Hebrews as well as many other verses are clear, He offered himself once, at the consumation of the ages, obtained eternal redemption, perfected us, and put sin away. Then He said one greek word. It is finished. Walt asked you to read the book of Hebrews. Its not good for the RomanCatholic religion’s case. K
Bob, Melchizadek had no geneology, he was the king of righteouness and peace, had no father and mother, and in a culture of latent idolatry he clung to the true God. So for all the above reasons, especially the last one your Priests dont qualify. He brought bread and wine to eat, not a bread god. Some think its a theophany of Jesus in the OT. Your Priests die Bob, like those in the order of Aaron, so there sacrifices are of no effect like theirs. Except aaronic Priests were holy men, need I say more. God bless.
KEVIN–
“Then He said one greek word. It is finished. ”
Jesus did not say it in Greek. He said it in either Hebrew or Aramaic–kalah.
Here is Paul talking about his ministering as a priest ordained by Christ unto the order of Melchizadek:
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”-1 Cor. 10:16-17
“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”-1 Cor. 11:23-27
You want more? Here is the writings of the Early Church Fathers:
The Didache or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” is a manuscript which was used by 2nd century bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced it making this document relatively easy to date.
“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred'”.-Ch. 9:5
“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.'”-Ch 14
St. Clement was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome.
“Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.”– St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians
“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]
St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.
“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” –Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.
“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.” -“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.
“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.” -“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.
“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ – they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church – they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.” -Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.
St. Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy. He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.
“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” –“First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.
“God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him.” –“Dialogue with Trypho”, Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.
“Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.’ It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it.”–“Dialogue with Trypho”, [41: 8-10]
St. Irenaeus succeeded St. Pothinus to become the second bishop of Lyons in 177 A.D. Earlier in his life he studied under St. Polycarp. Considered, one of the greatest theologians of the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus is best known for refuting the Gnostic heresies.
“[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.”–St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:
“So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.”–“Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely Named Gnosis”. Book 5:2, 2-3, circa 180 A.D.
“For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection.”–“Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis”. Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.
St. Clement of Alexandria studied under Pantaenus. He later succeeded him as the director of the school of catechumens in Alexandria, Egypt around the year 200 A.D.,
“The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, – of the drink and of the Word, – is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.”,–“The Instructor of the Children”. [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,
“The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!”,–“The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D.. ,
St. Cyprian of Carthage converted from paganism to Christianity around the year 246 A.D. Soon afterwards, he aspired to the priesthood and eventually was ordained Bishop of Carthage. He was beheaded for his Faith in the year 258 A.D., thus he was the first African bishop to have been martyred.,
“So too the the sacred meaning of the Pasch lies essentially in the fact, laid down in Exodus, that the lamb – slain as a type of Christ – should be eaten in one single home. God says the words: ‘In one house shall it be eaten, ye shall not cast its flesh outside.’ The flesh of Christ and the Lord’s sacred body cannot be cast outside, nor have believers any other home but the one Church.”,–“The Unity of the Catholic Church”. Ch.8, circa 249-258 A.D.,
(Description of an event in which an infant was taken to a pagan sacrifice and then the mother recovered it and brought it to Mass.)
“Listen to what happened in my presence, before my very eyes. There was a baby girl, whose parents had fled and had, in their fear, rather improvidently lift it in the charge of its nurse. The nurse took the helpless child to the magistrates. There, before the idol where the crowds were flocking, as it was too young to eat the flesh, they gave it some bread dipped in what was left of the wine offered by those who had already doomed themselves. Later, the mother recovered her child. But the girl could not reveal or tell the wicked thing that had been done, any more than she had been able to understand or ward it off before. Thus, when the mother brought her in with her while we were offering the Sacrifice, it was through ignorance that this mischance occurred. But the infant, in the midst of the faithful, resenting the prayer and the offering we were making, began to cry convulsively, struggling and tossing in a veritable brain-storm, and for all its tender age and simplicity of soul, was confessing, as if under torture, in every way it could, its consciousness of the misdeed. Moreover, when the sacred rites were completed and the deacon began ministering to those present, when its turn came to receive, it turned its little head away as if sensing the divine presence, it closed its mouth, held its lips tight, and refused to drink from the chalice. The deacon persisted and, in spite of its opposition, poured in some of the consecrated chalice. There followed choking and vomiting. The Eucharist could not remain in a body or mouth that was defiled; the drink which had been sanctified by Our Lord’s blood returned from the polluted stomach. So great is the power of the Lord, and so great His majesty!”,–“The Lapsed” Ch. 25, circa 249-258 A.D.,
“The priest who imitates that which Christ did, truly takes the place of Christ, and offers there in the Church a true and perfect sacrifice to God the Father.”–St. Cyprian wrote to the Ephesians circa 258 A.D:,
“There was a woman too who with impure hands tried to open the locket in which she was keeping Our Lord’s holy body, but fire flared up from it and she was too terrified to touch it. And a man who, in spite of his sin, also presumed secretly to join the rest in receiving sacrifice offered by the bishop, was unable to eat or even handle Our Lord’s sacred body; when he opened his hands, he found he was holding nothing but ashes. By this one example it was made manifest that Our Lord removes Himself from one who denies Him, and that what is received brings no blessing to the unworthy, since the Holy One has fled and the saving grace is turned to ashes.”–“The Lapsed” Ch. 26, circa 249-258 A.D.,
“As the prayer proceeds, we ask and say: ‘Give us this day our daily bread.’ This can be understood both spiritually and simply, because either understanding is of profit in divine usefulness for salvation. For Christ is the bread of life and the bread here is of all, but is ours. And as we say ‘Our Father,’ because He is the Father of those who understand and believe, so too we say ‘our Bread,’ because Christ is the bread of those of us who attain to His body. Moreover, we ask that this bread be given daily, lest we, who are in Christ and receive the Eucharist daily as food of salvation, with the intervention of some more grievous sin, while we are shut off and as non-communicants are kept from the heavenly bread, be separated from the body of Christ as He Himself declares, saying: ‘I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If any man eat of my bread he shall live forever. Moreover, the bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world.’ Since then He says that, if anyone eats of His bread, he lives forever, as it is manifest that they live who attain to His body and receive the Eucharist by right of communion, so on the other hand we must fear and pray lest anyone, while he is cut off and separated from the body of Christ, remain apart from salvation, as He Himself threatens, saying: ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.’ And so we petition that our bread, that is Christ, be given us daily, so that we, who abide and live in Christ, may not withdraw from His sanctification and body.” –St. Cyprian of Carthage, the Lord’s Prayer, 252 A.D., chapter 18:,
Not much biographical information has been left about Aphraates. It is known that he was one of the Fathers of the Syrian Church. It is speculated that he was made bishop late in his life. He is thought to have been born ca. 280 A.D. and to have died ca. 345 A.D.,
“But the Lord was not yet arrested. After having spoken thus, the Lord rose up from the place where He had made the Passover and had given His Body as food and His Blood as drink, and He went with His disciples to the place where He was to be arrested. But he ate of His own Body and drank of His own Blood, while He was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented His own Body to be eaten, and before he was crucified He gave His blood as drink; and He was taken at night on the fourteenth, and was judged until the sixth hour; and at the sixth hour they condemned Him and raised Him on the cross.”,– “Treatises” [12,6] inter 336-345 A.D.,
Serapion: “‘Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth is full of Your glory.’ Heaven is full, and full is the earth with your magnificent glory, Lord of Virtues. Full also is this Sacrifice, with your strength and your communion; for to You we offer this living Sacrifice, this unbloody oblation. To you we offer this bread, the likeness of the Body of the Only-begotten. This bread is the likeness of His holy Body because the Lord Jesus Christ, on the night on which He was betrayed, took bread and broke and gave to His disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat, this is My Body, which is being broken for you, unto the remission of sins.’ On this account too do we offer the Bread, to bring ourselves into the likeness of His death; and we pray: Reconcile us all, O God of truth, and be gracious to us. And just as this Bread was scattered over the mountains and when collected was made one, so too gather Your holy Church from every nation and every country and every city and village and house and make it one living Catholic Church.
We offer also the cup, the likeness of His Blood, because the Lord Jesus Christ took the cup after He had eaten, and He said to His disciples, ‘Take, drink, this is the new covenant, which is My Blood which is being poured out for you unto the remission of sins.’ For this reason too we offer the chalice, to benefit ourselves by the likeness of His Blood. O God of truth, may Your Holy Logos come upon this Bread, that the Bread may become the Body of the Logos, and on this Cup, that the Cup may become the Blood of the Truth. And make all who communicate receive the remedy of life, to cure every illness and to strengthen every progress and virtue; not unto condemnation, O God of truth, nor unto disgrace and reproach!
For we invoke You, the Increate, through Your Only-begotten in the Holy Spirit. Be merciful to this people, sent for the destruction of evil and for the security of Your Church. We beseech You also on behalf of all the departed, of whom also this is the commemoration: – after the mentioning of their names: – Sanctify these souls, for You know them all; sanctify all who have fallen asleep in the Lord and count them among the ranks of Your saints and give them a place and abode in your kingdom. Accept also the thanksgiving of Your people and bless those who offer the oblations and the Thanksgivings, and bestow health and integrity and festivity and every progress of soul and body on the whole of this Your people through your Only-begotten Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, as it was and is and will be in generations of generations and unto the whole expanse of the ages of ages. Amen.” –“The Sacramentary of Serapion, Prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice” [13],
St. Ephraim was one of the great authors of the Syrian Church. Because of his beautiful writings, he is sometimes referred to as the ‘lyre of the Holy Spirit’. He studied under James, Bishop of Nisbis. In 338 A.D. he aspired to the diaconate and remained a deacon for the remainder of his life.,
“Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit.
And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: ‘Take, all of you eat of this; which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven.’ But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body.” –“Homilies” 4,4 ca.. 350 A.D.,
“After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ’s body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. The He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out….Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: ‘This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood, As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old.” –“Homilies” 4,6 ca. 350 A.D.,
“‘And your floors shall be filled with wheat, and the presses shall overflow equally with wine and oil.’ … This has been fulfilled mystically by Christ, who gave to the people whom He had redeemed, that is, to His Church, wheat and wine and oil in a mystic manner. For the wheat is the mystery of His sacred Body; and the wine His saving Blood; and again, the oil is the sweet unguent with which those who are baptized are signed, being clothed in the armaments of the Holy Spirit.” –“On Joel 2:24”, Commentaries on Sacred Scripture, Vol. 2 p. 252 of the Assemani edition.
St. Athanasius was born in Alexandria ca. 295 A.D. He was ordained a deacon in 319 A.D. He accompanied his bishop, Alexander, to the Council of Nicaea, where he served as his secretary. Eventually he succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria. He is most known for defending Nicene doctrine against Arian disputes.
“The great Athanasius in his sermon to the newly baptized says this:’ You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. ‘And again:’ Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine – and thus His Body is confected.”–“Sermon to the Newly Baptized” ante 373 A.D.,
St. Cyril served as Bishop of Jerusalem in the years 348-378 A.D.,
“`I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, etc. [1 Cor. 11:23]’. This teaching of the Blessed Paul is alone sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning those Divine Mysteries, which when ye are vouchsafed, ye are of (the same body) [Eph 3:6] and blood with Christ. For he has just distinctly said, (That our Lord Jesus Christ the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks He brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is My Body: and having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, Take, drink, this is My Blood.) [1 Cor. 2:23-25] Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, (This is My Body), who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, (This is My Blood), who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?–“Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 1]
“Therefore with fullest assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mightest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are diffused through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, (we become partaker of the divine nature.) [2 Peter 1:4] –“Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 3]
“Contemplate therefore the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for though sense suggests this to thee, let faith stablish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ. –“Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 6]”
“9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man’s heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart’, partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine’. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:–To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen.”–St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis 4,1, c. 350 A.D.:
“Then upon the completion of the spiritual Sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over the propitiatory victim we call upon God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and offer this Sacrifice for all who are in need.”–“Mystagogic Catechesis [23: 5-7]
“Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep; for we believe that it will be of very great benefit of the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn Sacrifice is laid out.”–Mystagogic Catechesis [23 (Mystagogic 5), 10]
“After this you hear the singing which invites you with a divine melody to the Communion of the Holy Mysteries, and which says, ‘Taste and see that the Lord is good.’ Do not trust to the judgement of the bodily palate – no, but to unwavering faith. For they who are urged to taste do not taste of bread and wine, but to the antitype, of the Body and Blood of Christ.”–“Mystagogic Catecheses 5 23, 20 ca. 350 A.D
“Keep these traditions inviolate, and preserve yourselves from offenses. Do not cut yourselves off from Communion, do not deprive yourselves, through the pollution of sins, of these Holy and Spiritual Mysteries.” –“Mystagogic Catechesis [23 (Mystagogic 5), 23]”
St. Hilary firmly defended the Nicene Creed against Arian false doctrines. He was ordained Bishop of Poiters in 350 A.D. His efforts led to the collapse of Arianism in the West. He was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by Pius IX in 1851.
“When we speak of the reality of Christ’s nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously – had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: ‘My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in him.’ As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly the Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God.”–“The Trinity” [8,14] inter 356-359 A.D.
St. Basil is recognized as the founder of Eastern monasticism. He was ordained Bishop of Caesarea in 370 A.D. He defended the Catholic Church against two waves of Arian attacks. The first movement denied the divinity of Christ. The second denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. He is considered one of the greatest saints of the Oriental Church.
“What is the mark of a Christian? That he be purified of all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit in the Blood of Christ, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God and the love of Christ, and that he have no blemish nor spot nor any such thing; that he be holy and blameless and so eat the Body of Christ and drink His Blood; for ‘he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself.’ What is the mark of those who eat the Bread and drink the Cup of Christ? That they keep in perpetual remembrance Him who died for us and rose again.”–“The Morals” Ch. 22
“He, therefore, who approaches the Body and Blood of Christ in commemoration of Him who died for us and rose again must be free not only from defilement of flesh and spirit, in order that he may not eat drink unto judgement, but he must actively manifest the remembrance of Him who died for us and rose again, by being dead to sin, to the world, and to himself, and alive unto God in Christ Jesus, our Lord.”–“Concerning Baptism” Book I, Ch. 3.
“To communicate each day and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ is good and beneficial; for He says quite plainly: ‘He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.’ Who can doubt that to share continually in life is the same thing as having life abundantly? We ourselves communicate four times each week, on Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday; and on other days if there is a commemoration of any saint.”–“Letter to a Patrician Lady Caesaria” [93] ca. 372 A.D.
St. Epiphanius of Salamis: “We see that the Saviour took [something] in His hands, as it is in the Gospel, when He was reclining at the supper; and He took this, and giving thanks, He said: ‘This is really Me.’ And He gave to His disciples and said: ‘This is really Me.’ And we see that It is not equal nor similar, not to the incarnate image, not to the invisible divinity, not to the outline of His limbs. For It is round of shape, and devoid of feeling. As to Its power, He means to say even of Its grace, ‘This is really Me.’; and none disbelieves His word. For anyone who does not believe the truth in what He says is deprived of grace and of a Savior.”–“The Man Well-Anchored” [57] 374 A.D.
St. Gregory was consecrated Bishop of Sasima in the year 371 A.D and was a friend of St. Basil for most of his life.
“Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your voice for a sword.” –“Letter to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium” [171] ca. 383 A.D.
St. Gregory of Nyssa: “Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been made over into the Body of the God the Word. For that Body was, as to its potency bread; but it has been consecrated by the lodging there of the Word, who pitched His tent in the flesh.”–“The Great Catechism [37: 9-13]”
“He offered Himself for us, Victim and Sacrifice, and Priest as well, and ‘Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.’ When did He do this? When He made His own Body food and His own Blood drink for His disciples; for this much is clear enough to anyone, that a sheep cannot be eaten by a man unless its being eaten be preceded by its being slaughtered. This giving of His own Body to His disciples for eating clearly indicates that the sacrifice of the Lamb has now been completed.”–“Orations and Sermons” [Jaeger: Vol 9, p. 287] ca. 383 A.D.
“The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ.”–“Orations and Sermons” [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.
From 386-397 A.D. St. John Chrysostom served as a priest in the main church of Antioch. He soon became renown for his preaching and writing skills. In 397 A.D. he succeeded St. Gregory of Nazianz as Bishop of Constantinople.
“When the word says, ‘This is My Body,’ be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ did not give us something tangible, but even in His tangible things all is intellectual. So too with Baptism: the gift is bestowed through what is a tangible thing, water; but what is accomplished is intellectually perceived: the birth and the renewal. If you were incorporeal He would have given you those incorporeal gifts naked; but since the soul is intertwined with the body, He hands over to you in tangible things that which is perceived intellectually. How many now say, ‘I wish I could see His shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals.’ Only look! You see Him! You touch Him! You eat Him!”–“Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew” [82,4] 370 A.D.
“I wish to add something that is plainly awe-inspiring, but do not be astonished or upset. This Sacrifice, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul, is always the same as that which Christ gave His disciples and which priests now offer: The offering of today is in no way inferior to that which Christ offered, because it is not men who sanctify the offering of today; it is the same Christ who sanctified His own. For just as the words which God spoke are the very same as those which the priest now speaks, so too the oblation is the very same.” –St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Second Epistle to Timothy,” 2,4, c. 397 A.D.
“It is not the power of man which makes what is put before us the Body and Blood of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. ‘This is My Body,’ he says, and these words transform what lies before him.”–St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Treachery of Judas” 1,6; d. 407 A.D.:
“‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the Blood of Christ?’ Very trustworthily and awesomely does he say it. For what he is saying is this: ‘What is in the cup is that which flowed from His side, and we partake of it.’ He called it a cup of blessing because when we hold it in our hands that is how we praise Him in song, wondering and astonished at His indescribable Gift, blessing Him because of His having poured out this very Gift so that we might not remain in error, and not only for His having poured out It out, but also for His sharing It with all of us.”–“Homilies on the First Letter to the Corinthians” [24,1] ca. 392 A.D.
St. Ambrose of Milan: “You perhaps say: ‘My bread is usual.’ But the bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; when consecration has been added, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ. So let us confirm this, how it is possible that what is bread is the body of Christ. By what words, then, is the consecration and by whose expressions? By those of the Lord Jesus. For all the rest that are said in the preceding are said by the priest: praise to God, prayer is offered, there is a petition for the people, for kings, for the rest. When it comes to performing a venerable sacrament, then the priest uses not his own expressions, but he uses the expressions of Christ. Thus the expression of Christ performs this sacrament.” –“The Sacraments” Book 4, Ch.4:14.
“Let us be assured that this is not what nature formed, but what the blessing consecrated, and that greater efficacy resides in the blessing than in nature, for by the blessing nature is changed… . Surely the word of Christ, which could make out of nothing that which did not exist, can change things already in existence into what they were not. For it is no less extraordinary to give things new natures than to change their natures… . Christ is in that Sacrament, because it is the Body of Christ; yet, it is not on that account corporeal food, but spiritual. Whence also His Apostle says of the type: `For our fathers ate spiritual food and drink spiritual drink.’ [1 Cor. 10:2-4] For the body of God is a spiritual body.”–“On the Mysteries” 9, 50-52, 58; 391 A.D.:
“His poverty enriches, the fringe of His garment heals, His hunger satisfies, His death gives life, His burial gives resurrection. Therefore, He is a rich treasure, for His bread is rich. And ‘rich’ is apt for one who has eaten this bread will be unable to feel hunger. He gave it to the Apostles to distribute to a believing people, and today He gives it to us, for He, as a priest, daily consecrates it with His own words. Therefore, this bread has become the food of the saints.”–“The Patriarchs” Ch. 9:38
“Thus, every soul which receives the bread which comes down from heaven is a house of bread, the bread of Christ, being nourished and having its heart strengthened by the support of the heavenly bread which dwells within it.”–“Letter to Horontianus” circa 387 A.D.
Aurelius Pruentius Clemens: “Such is the hidden retreat where Hippolytus’ body is buried. Next to an altar nearby, built for the worship of God. Table from which the sacrament all holy is given, close to the martyr it stands, set as a faithful guard.”–“Hymns for Every Day” Hymn 170.
St. Jerome: “After the type had been fulfilled by the Passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the Passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood.”–“Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew” [4,26,26] 398 A.D.
ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA
St. Cyril of Alexandria: “Christ said indicating (the bread and wine): ‘This is My Body,’ and “This is My Blood,” in order that you might not judge what you see to be a mere figure. The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood, and by receiving these we come to share in the life-giving and sanctifying efficacy of Christ.”–St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 26,27, 428 A.D.:
“We have been instructed in these matters and filled with an unshakable faith, that that which seems to be bread, is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the Body of Christ, and that which seems to be wine, is not wine, though it too tastes as such, but the Blood of Christ … draw inner strength by receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice.”
–St. Cyril of Alexandria, “Catecheses,” 22, 9; “Myst.” 4; d. 444 A.D.:
St Augustine: “You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”–“Sermons”, [227, 21]
“He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon what you eat, what you drink, to what you answer ‘Amen'”.–“Second Discourse on Psalm 32”. Ch. 4. circa
“For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf. — St. Augustine, Sermons 172,2, circa 400 A.D.
“The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice… . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.–St. Augustine, The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426:
Marcarius the Magnesian: “[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: ‘This is My Body and this is My Blood.’ Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth.”–“Apocriticus” [3,23] ca. 400 A.D.
St. Leo I: “When the Lord says: ‘Unless you shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man and shall have drunk His blood, you shall not have life in you,’ you ought to so communicate at the Sacred Table that you have no doubt whatever of the truth of the Body and the Blood of Christ. For that which is taken in the mouth is what is believed in faith; and in do those respond, ‘Amen,’ who argue against that which is received.”–“Sermons” [91,3] ante 461 A.D.
St. Caesar of Arles: “As often as some infirmity overtakes a man, let him who is ill receive the Body and Blood of Christ.”–“Sermons [13 (265), 3]
St. Fulgene of Ruspe: “Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the Only-begotten God the Word Himself become flesh offered Himself in an odor of sweetness as a Sacrifice and Victim to God on our behalf; to whom, with the Father, and the Holy Spirit, in the time of the Old Testament animals were sacrificed by the patriarchs and prophets and priests; and to whom now, I mean in the time of the New Testament, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, with whom He has one Godhead, the Holy Catholic Church does not cease in faith and love to offer throughout all the lands of the world a sacrifice of Bread and Wine … In those former sacrifices what would be given us in the future was signified figuratively; but in this sacrifice which has now been given us, it is shown plainly. In those former sacrifices it was fore-announced that the Son of God would be killed for the impious; but in the present it is announced that He has been killed for the impious.”–“The Rule of Faith [62]”
“I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.”(2 Tim 4:1-4)
KEVIN! It is a real shame that you have been duped into believing what you do about the beliefs of the early Christians. And shame on whoever taught you that garbage.
There is more than ample enough evidence to convince you otherwise. Take off your Calvinist blinders and see the truth!
Bob, you have read nothing that Tim has written. And frankly you only know about the early fathers what the Catholic church has taught you. I hope you will someday read Tim’s articles. He deals with all the quotes you put up by the Fathers in the early church. They didnt believe in transubstantiation, nor did they have a re sacrifice of Christ at an altar. The sacrifices they talk about are spiritual of praise and thanksgiving. Not sacrificing ourselves or Christ again for the prpitiation of our sins. Paul said He died once and never to die again. Revelation 1:17 Jesus said ” I was dead and now I live forever more” He is risen Bobd, He’ll never leave glory to die again on your altar. The next time He comes it will be to gather His people. The sacrifice of thd Mass, and transubstantiation arean awful sacriledge man made. Masses, Idulgences, Purgatory has always been about using guilt for money. Tim has documented all this meticulously. You are without excuse. Take care.
Bob,
Thanks for this—a very interesting compilation, and I am working my way through it. My first thought is that the early church did not consider the bread to be the offering. The thanks was the offering, as in this citation from Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho:
He continues and says that “For such [prayers and giving of thanks] alone [that is, not prayers, thanks, and the sufferings of Christ in the form of bread and wine] Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind [not brought to the altar], whose name the high priests of your nation and your teachers have caused to be profaned and blasphemed over all the earth.”
I notice that he says God “calls their prayers sacrifices,” and then says these alone “Christians have undertaken to offer,” but the solid and liquid food merely call to mind, but to not make present, “the suffering of the Son of God which He endured.” In that sense, he has separated the “bread” from the “prayer sacrifice” and it appears to me that the Didache does the same thing, based on the same verse from Malachi:
If the bread is the sacrifice, what difference does it make that a congregant has an unresolved issue with his brother? But if his thanks is the sacrifice, I can understand why it matters.
Christians gather together to break bread and offer thanks, not to offer bread and give thanks. The thanks is the offering, not the bread. The Eucharist, in the early church, derived as it is from the Greek, “eucharisteo” was a meal at which Christians gathered to break bread and offer thanks — a meal of thanksgiving at which they offer their gratitude to God for what He did for them at the cross. Thus it is hard to see in the early church the notion of offering the bread and wine as an atoning sacrifice before God. Their practice does not speak of a Mass Sacrifice in which Christ’s passion is re-presented to the Father. It speaks of a memorial meal in which the bread and wine call to mind the sufferings of Christ for which we rightly give God prayers of thanks and praise as a sacrifice, which seems to be consistent with Hebrews 13:15,
I have absolutely no problem offering sacrifices to God. The sacrifices with which He is pleased are “the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name,” not the fruit of our hands representing Jesus’ sufferings to Him for our sins, and these are the sacrifices that appear to be in mind in the citations above. I don’t see the early church offering bread and wine as that sacrifice.
I’ll continue looking into these citations. Thanks for providing them.
Tim
Tim,
“If the bread is the sacrifice, …”.
Bread is NOT the sacrifice Tim. Never was, never will be. Bread is not the Second person of the Trinity, did not Incarnate in the womb pf the Blessed Virgin Mary, did not hand on a cross and rise three day later for our salvation.
Sheeeesh!
Slight of hand. Catholics try to say it is a re presentation whr Trent anathematizes anyone who does not say the Mas is a real sacrifice for sins. ” work of the people” the historic Catholic church name for the Mass. Obrien says the Priest pulls Christ down from heaven as his regent and lays Him on the altar for the imolation. It is a sacrifice of Christ and themselves to increase in grace and justice, for them and dead relatives, even though scripture says it is appointed man once to die and then judgment. When Tim says they are sacrificing bread, it was meant to be eaten, not sacrificed as if it were Christs physical body. Melchizadek brought Abe bread not bread God. K
Tim, incidentally, many dont know this, but when Catholics say it is acre presentation, it is not. Trent is clear that it is areal sacrifice although unbloody, that is efficaciouscfor sins. And Trent anathematizes anyone who says its not a true and real re breaking of our Lord’s body.
Bob said ” is is a shame what you have been duped to believe about early Christians. There is more than ample evidence otherwise.” What is a shame Bob is you have been duped to believe what is false about early Christians. The Fathers werent Roman Catholic. Calvin said if we weighed up all the evidence of the early church, it would fall heavily on our side. I really hope you will read Tim’ s articles on Mary, the Roman Eucharist, and ” the rise of Roman Catholicism”. Bob, you cannot pray to Mary, participate in a Mass, and worship the bread and be saved. Not because I say it, but because God says it. Thecearly church did not believe the supper was a sacrifice for sins. The didnt believe in transubstantiation. And they certainly didnt believe that a sacrament was merit for the strong, as opposed to grace for the weak. Bob, the catholic Mass goes against all that Christ is. It is the antithesis of Christianity all wrapped up into one event. Its merit, its idolatry, it undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s one time sacrifice, and its the definition of faithlessness. It is antichrist. And people who knowingly participate are in peril. God bless.
Bob, the NT is written in greek. Neither one was Jerome any good at. The greek word is tetelestai and its one word that means It is finished. Is that all you got Bob. I saw your answer to Eric W, and your scuffling bad. Let me make it easy for you. There are no more Priests because Hebrews said they have been made obsolete chapter 7 and 8. The better came, the perfect Priest whose one time sacrifice covers all the sin across time. Even the medieval church admitted that personal perfect perpetual obedience is required to enter heaven, God doesnt give do overs. But the medieval church missed it. They interpreted that Christ came to give them the injection to accumulate that righteouness inherntly for heaven by their obedience. They were wrong. He was born under the law, obeyed perfectly, died, and rose again. You cant keep a good man down, and He was good. He lived the law in our place, hung on a tree and took the curse and wrath for our sins, because we are bad people, loved us just because He loved us. Not because of who we are, or what we did, but because He gave us grace. Thats all. But it can only be received by faith alone in Christ alone. Think about it Bob. ” what profits a man to gain the whole world yet forfiet his soul” You are either going to stand before Him in your righteouness, or His. Blessings
“You cant keep a good man down, and He was good. ”
Catchy Kelvin. Did you make this up.
By the way, I haven’t been purposely neglecting you. It’s just that I have been kicking ass over on Beggars All for the past couple of weeks and so haven’t had time to change your diapers. ( You must really be reeking! )
Jim said to Kevin ” havent had the time to changevyour diapers here” DEPENDS Jim lol Hope you are well.
You didn’t read any of this at all. The evidence is before you. I rest my case. Like I said, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Adios
Bob said ” you didnt read this at all” pot kettle black, ” Adios” and goodbye.
Tim,
I think Nick is calling you out over on CCC.
Jim wrote:
I think Nick is calling you out over on CCC.
Tim hears Nick’s voice, but sees Jim’s mouth moving.
Bob, I counted up the times the Fathers said the word bread in that long compilation of the Fathers you provided. 27 times! Thats consistent with Paul and Jesus who called it bread even after it was broken. Augustine put it simply ” Understand spiritually what I have told you” And Jesus said ” the things I have said are Spirit, the flesh profits nothing. So here is the question Bob, based on these citations, why do you not immediately leave that communion of the Mass?! Peace , love, and the resurrection.
Bob, perspective is always good. The Bible uses epaphax as the word for ” once and for all” It means never to be repeated or continued. Just more evidence that the continual sacrifice of the Mass isn’t biblical. Thanks.
Bob, References for Epaphax ” once for all never to be repeated or perpetuated” are Romans 6:10, Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 10:10, 10:14. So the Fathers if they are assumed to be correct could not have held the Roman Catholic position to which you ascribe. God bless. K
TIM–
You said: “I have absolutely no problem offering sacrifices to God. The sacrifices with which He is pleased are “the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name,” not the fruit of our hands representing Jesus’ sufferings to Him for our sins, and these are the sacrifices that appear to be in mind in the citations above. I don’t see the early church offering bread and wine as that sacrifice.”
You don’t? I gave you writings plain as day above.
I noticed you used Justin Martyr to “prove” your case. Well, here’s the rest of the story:
“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” –Justin Martyr,”First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.
As we say here in Texas, “It don’t get any plainer than that!”
You also said: “I’ll continue looking into these citations. Thanks for providing them.”
My pleasure. And you do that– look a little closer this time.
I’m sorry, Bob, I may not be understanding your point. You wrote,
I merely stated that Justin Martyr saw the thanks as the offering, not the bread. Is there something in the above citation that shows Justin Martyr identifying bread as the sacrifice? If so, I am missing it. As you can see if you continue reading, in chapter 67, again, it is the prayers that are offered, not the bread:
Again, I’m not seeing where Justin Martyr has the bread being offered. I realize you have provided an extensive list. I will get to it. My only point is that neither Justin Martyr nor the Didache support the idea of bread (common or otherwise) being offered. It is thanks that is offered.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “I merely stated that Justin Martyr saw the thanks as the offering, not the bread. Is there something in the above citation that shows Justin Martyr identifying bread as the sacrifice? If so, I am missing it. ”
There certainly is:
“Moreover, as I said before, concerning the SACRIFICES which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your SACRIFICES from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.’ IT IS OF THE SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, THE GENTILES, THAT IS , OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it.”–Justin Martyr,”Dialogue with Trypho”, [41: 8-10]
Don’t just quickly scan through this, Tim. You need to read it carefully so you won’t miss important things like this. Understand also, Tim, that we Methodists (a branch of the Reformed) believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. We don’t define it as transubstantiation like the Catholics do, but we acknowledge it as a miracle of the Lord.
Bob, you have been continually shown in scripture and the ECF’s and Tim has told you that the spiritual sarifices of prayer and thanksgiving is what is meant, and NOT a rebreaking of our Lord’ body, or a propititiatoty sacrifice on your behalf for your sins and the dead. Only prayer and thanksgivind. Hebrews is clear the one sacrifice put sin away. I will be recusing myself again because it like casting pearls. You refuse to look at clear evidence Ihave given you from Augustine and scripture against another breaking of our Lord’s body and transubstantiation? Methodist are a part of the Reformed church. And Methodist would know that. Your sin has found you out. God bless you Bob. May the truth set you free.
Yes, Bob, I did read it. I understand that the Early Church fathers relied heavily on Malachi 1:11 to refer to the Eucharistic Sacrifice. In the Dialogue with Trypho, however, Martyr makes clear what the sacrifice of the Eucharist is: prayers.
The sacrifice is prayer, and God is thanked for His salvation. Then the bread is distributed. You may recall that this conversation started with your provision of evidence from the early church fathers that they used sacrificial language in the Eucharist. Clearly what was sacrificed was “a prayer sacrifice” in accordance with Hebrews 13:15, “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.”
Elsewhere in this thread, you observed,
Yes, I do know this. I do not deny it. In Roman Catholicism, the Eucharist is the sacrifice of the Mass. What I deny is that the Early Church fathers were Roman Catholic. Rome has taken the early church’s use of Eucharist (giving of thanks) as a description of the Lord’s supper (bread and wine) during which they “offer[ed] the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name,” and turned it into a sacrifice in which Christ is offered up continually under the appearance of bread. You may note that Justin Martyr says no such thing.
You continued,
All I am asking is that you prove it. Justin Martyr emphatically states that the only pure and well-pleaseing sacrifice is “prayers and giving of thanks” and you are retroactively reading into this a Roman Catholic Mass Sacrifice. Where is the bread offered in Justin Martyr’s writing? You continued,
Very well, then. Where in Justin Martyr is the bread offered as the sacrifice? Don’t twist the words of Martyr to make him say “the prayers of the faithful are offered along with the bread and the wine.” Instead, just show me where he says that. If it is so plain, you should have no trouble showing that in Justin Martyr’s view, the bread is the sacrifice that is offered. You continued,
And this is why the church did not realize—for over 1,000 years—that it should adore the elements? Surely the church did not take 1,000 years to realize Christ is God. And yet in spite of being “in the presence of God at the consecration,” the Church spent 1,000 years on its feet, not falling to their knees before their God? You say the church fathers confirm the real presence of Christ in the elements, and yet the early church forbade kneeling on the Lord’s day. How could they possibly forbid kneeling on the Lord’s day if on the Lord’s day Jesus was present with them in the flesh? Well, that is what is in question isn’t it? Compare:
Who is right? Augustine? Or Paul VI?
In essence, you are asking me to adopt the Roman Catholic approach to history, which is, “Let’s just assume that the first 1500 years of Christianity were Roman Catholic, and go from there.” I am unwilling to adopt that axiom. As Justin Martyr said, “and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind.” Not brought to the altar. Brought to mind.
Thanks,
Tim
tIM–
You said:
“All I am asking is that you prove it. Justin Martyr emphatically states that the only pure and well-pleaseing sacrifice is “prayers and giving of thanks” and you are retroactively reading into this a Roman Catholic Mass Sacrifice. Where is the bread offered in Justin Martyr’s writing?”
And:
“Very well, then. Where in Justin Martyr is the bread offered as the sacrifice? Don’t twist the words of Martyr to make him say “the prayers of the faithful are offered along with the bread and the wine.” Instead, just show me where he says that. If it is so plain, you should have no trouble showing that in Justin Martyr’s view, the bread is the sacrifice that is offered.”
And I ask what part of:
IT IS OF THE SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, THE GENTILES, THAT IS , OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST,
do you not understand?
You also say: ” Surely the church did not take 1,000 years to realize Christ is God. And yet in spite of being “in the presence of God at the consecration,” the Church spent 1,000 years on its feet, not falling to their knees before their God? You say the church fathers confirm the real presence of Christ in the elements, and yet the early church forbade kneeling on the Lord’s day. How could they possibly forbid kneeling on the Lord’s day if on the Lord’s day Jesus was present with them in the flesh? Well, that is what is in question isn’t it?”
It took the council of Nicaea 300 years after the fact to finally define Jesus was God. The Arians and the gnostics didn’t really believe it. And the apostles reclined at table with the Lord, they didn’t stand. And the Church for centuries stood for the whole service, they didn’t even have pews!
Tim, if Jesus comes to you, even in Spirit, do you kneel?
Bob, you asked,
I understand the statement, Bob. If I am understanding you correctly, you believe the statement in all caps represents exhaustively the full spectrum of Justin Martyr’s thinking. I get that. In a paragraph in which Justin Martyr finds a symbol in the Old Testament that includes flour, he relates that to the bread and wine.
But later on in the same book, when he actually describes how the Eucharist is celebrated, he distinctly separates the bread which is broken from the thanks that are offered:
What is missing is a statement of the president “offering the bread” or the people participating in “that which has been offered.” Instead, he says prayers and thanks are offered, and then the people participate in that over which thanks have been given. As I have also noted, Justin Martyr admits that prayers and thanksgiving are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices.
He says this in the context of Trypho’s allegation that the Lord “calls their prayers sacrifices.” That is what Justin “admits.” The prayers are the sacrifices.
Some additional food for thought for you, as well: this from Tertullian in which he distinctly separates the praise—which is the pure sacrifice—from the sacraments.
He rejoices that these things are found among you, not only the sacrifices—”the ascription of glory, and blessing, and praise, and hymns”—but also the sacraments in addition to the pure sacrifices. The sacraments are not the sacrifices and the sacrifices are not the sacraments. This is consistent with what he says in the next book, in which he identifies the “pure sacrifice” of Malachi to be “simple prayer from a pure conscience“:
The same goes with the Didache:
Bread is broken. Thanks are offered.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob “the ones who believes that the things we teach are true, and has RECEIVED the washing of rebirth and forgiveness of sins, and whose lives as Christ HANDED down to us. ” but as Jesus Christ our savior being incarnate took flesh and blood for our salvation. ” We have receivedthe washing of rebirth and forgiveness of our sins. Past tense. No more sacrifices for sin Hebrews 10:18. Do you believe Hebrews? Notice he says Christ took on flesh for our sin, you didnt. No more propitiatory sacrifices, not you or your unqualified Priest. And this view hurts your case for transubstantiation. He’s talking about spiritual food of the bread and wine. Again, the supper wasnt a sacrifice for sins, and transubstantiation didnt exist. Dont give up your day job. Blessings
Bob, I gave you specifically 3 quotes from Augustine that definitavely said that now that the sacrifice has come, there are no more, and that the supper is to be understood spiritually. And you said to me find me other ones. ” It couldnt have been any plainer as we say here in Phoenix. ” Bob, your reading your Roman Cathoicism into the fathers, but thet werent Catholic. Augustine made it clear, no more sacrifices and no transubstantiation.
TIM–
Of all people, you should know better being raised Catholic. The Eucharist IS the sacrifice of the Mass. The prayers of the faithful are offered along with the bread and the wine THROUGH the perfect sacrifice that is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. You are trying so hard to discredit that. But you can’t. You twist and turn your explanations to try to make it fit your paradigm, but the plain words of Scripture and the writings of the Fathers still remain. Time and time again above the Fathers confirm the real presence of Christ in the elements of the Lord’s Supper.
Read the words for what they say, not for what you try to make them say. May the Holy Spirit guide you and teach you, Tim.
Bob, Some thoughts for you on Clement of Rome. You cited him:
The citation is from Chapter 40 of his epistle to the Corinthians. The occasion of his letter to the Corinthians is “that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy” (Clement, To the Corinthians, 1). Apparently disorder has broken out among the people of Corinth, and Clement is making an appeal to order, and to do so he appeals to the Old Testament, in order to show that under the Law, there was an order to worship, and the need for order in worship has not changed—which is why the schism is so detestable. That he is speaking of the Old Order is evidenced by his next chapter in which he says that the daily sacrifices are offered only in Jerusalem and only by the High Priest:
He is speaking of the past, but using the present tense to do so, and therefore I can understand that some might inadvertently take his words in chapter 40 to be an approbation of a current priesthood making sin-offerings, as you appear to have done. Certainly you would not have Clement to say that the only legitimate place for the Eucharistic sacrifice is Jerusalem, would you? In what sense then are we to understand his statement that “daily sacrifices,” “peace-offerings,” “sin-offerings,” and “trespass-offerings” are only offered in Jerusalem? Is it possible that he is using the the long abandoned order of the OT as a precursor to the order now prevailing as established by the apostles, and is not saying that we currently offer “daily sacrifices,””peace-offerings,” “sin-offerings,” and “trespass-offerings”?
Now reasoning from Old to New, Clement continues by appealing to the actual prevailing order established by the Apostles:
“The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.” (Clement, To the Corinthians, 42)
In other words, there is an order of Bishops and Deacons under the new covenant, just as there was an order of Levites and Laity in the old. Yet under neither, old or new, is there cause for division—order prevails in any case. And yet because of division, some Bishops have been deposed who had faithfully exercised their duties. It is in this context that you cited 44:4,
Here are four other translations of the same text:
As you can see, Clement’s concern is that the schism has resulted in men being ejected from the bishopric without cause. Sacrifice is not the term that is used here, but of men performing their duties blamelessly. In any case, I’ll grant that Clement does speak of offerings and sacrifices, though. What are those offerings? Clement tells us:
Nowhere does Clement have the bread being sacrificed for sin.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
Ok. Let me remind you again that the offerings and sacrifices are offered by the means of the Eucharist which Justin Martyr says with the BREAD of the Eucharist and the cup of the Eucharist. And because of Christ being present in the elements of the Eucharist, the offerings of prayers and praises, then, become perfect offerings. You know this already, Tim. And at least you acknowledge that the Mass is a sacrifice. The Fathers clearly state it. And you know also, Tim, and have experienced it yourself that the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice of the Lamb of God. Christ does not appear in his fleshly state and we kill him all over again. Christ, once sacrificed 2000 years ago, was bodily raised from the dead, blood and flesh never to be separated again. That is in the doctrine of concomitance. You know this. So “keeping Christ ever on the Cross” and “not letting Him off the altar” is a real and substantial slur that is insulting to those of us who believe in the Real Presence of the Lord’s Supper. It is unfortunate that you declare the works of the Holy Spirit presented in the epiclesis are the works of Beelzebul.
As much as you work to pick the writings of the Fathers to pieces for your private agenda, the fact remains that the early Christians believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. There is ample enough evidence of that. And you yourself acknowledge that the Mass is a sacrifice of prayers, praises, and thanksgiving (Greek for thanksgiving: eucharisteo). Christ himself has provided the means to make those sacrifices perfect– pleasing and acceptable to the Almighty Father.
Bob said ” and at least you acknowledge that the Mass is a sacrifice” No he didn’t. Tim said ” Nowhere did Clement say that the bread was a sacrifice FOR SINS” He said the opposite Bob. You are living in denial. Trent says the Mass is a TRUE sacrifice again of Christ again ( unbloody) FOR SINS. It anathematizes anyone who say it isn’t. Bob, do you care about what scripture says. Hebrews 10:14 says once offered never to be repeated or perpetuated. And verse 18 says there are no more sacrifices for sin. Not, no more levitical sacrifices, but all sacrifices have stopped for sin. Bob, did you read the Augustine quote I just gave you above. You twisted Tim’s words. Tim explicitly said the ONLY acceptable sacrifices were thanksgiving and prayer ( broken and contrite heart) as we break the bread and drink the cup. You must be told in love Bob that a Catholic goes to Mass to sacrifice himself and the Roman Priest creates God Man again and sacrifices Him for sin. This undermines the one true sacrifice that was SUFFICIENT for sin, and we are to trust in ALONE for our salvation. We are justified by faith in the blood ALREADY shed for us. And not to trust in Masses or any of our works. I pray for you. Blessings.
Bob said ” Tim, you have experienced it yourself that the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice of the Lamb of God.” Bob, do you understand that we are Reformed and one of the the main protests with the Roman church is that that they invented the Mass and another sacrifice of the savior for sin. It is an invention of man. It didn’t exist in the early church. Do you also understand Bob that we Reformed believe we are saved and justified by trusting solely in the already she blood. Romans 5:9 says we HAVE BEEN justified by His blood. Do you also understand in the words of John Knox we believe your mass to be a false salvation by the Papist adding their mumbled Masses as a work to justify and save someone. Do you also understand that this undermines being justified by faith alone. the Reformers said it was the greatest sacrilege and idolatry of the highest order. Why? Because the scripture is clear that Christ died once and put sin away. How are we to remember that sacrifice, if He continues to have to be sacrificed for our sins. Does God need to be reminded of the perfect sacrifice. And how can we obey scripture and commemorate and remember something that Rome says isn’t finished and is ongoing. The Supper is a confirmation of the grace already given to us by faith, and not merit if we approach with the perfect disposition. We have believed, we have been justified and saved, we go to the table and thank Him for what he did for us and we offer our lives in faith as our reasonable service of worship. But we protest and detest that the supper is a true and real sacrifice for sins, that happened on the cross and it was perfect. Paul says He is to never die again in Romans 6. A misunderstanding of this is fatal, because to participate in the Roman mass is a refusal to trust in the one time sacrifice which paid it all. And without that faith it is impossible to please God. That is why the Mass is so bad. Christ is Risen, Christ will come again. And the whole church sings Amen! Hallelujah. We have received mercy and eternal life. As Tim has said simply by believing the words of Jesus we have been transferred into the kingdom of God Romans 10:9,10. Bob, I love you with all the love of Christ. You have come to the right site to find the truth. Don’t harden your heart, but open it to the truth. You will know you have believed when you approach the true table of Christ in thanksgiving for the free grace we have already received by faith. ” As often as you do this, do this in remembrance of me, or as Augustine said ” the sacrifice which we now commemorate. K
Bob said, “Tim you are trying so hard to discredit that and you can’t” On the contrary Bob, he hasn’t had to try hard at all. He has provided overwhelming evidence in scripture and the early church to show the Lord’s supper was NEVER a re sacrifice of Christ or ourselves for our sin. You are the one who is trying hard to support a doctrine that the RC indoctrinated you with that exists nowhere in scripture or the early church. And Bob,Ck unless you are willing to read Tim’s articles, you will be unwilling to see the obvious truth. The Roman Catholic church has twisted church has twisted the supper. It was a meal at a table, not a sacrifice on an altar. The words said by the Priest are our current words words for Hocus Pocus. The Priest thinks himself powerful enough to create God. He becomes the creator of the creator. If you will read ” The rise of Roman Catholicism” by Timothy Kauffman you will soon understand this. Again no re sacrifice and no transubstantiation in the early church. IOW no false gospel of faith plus works to achieve one’s salvation, and no idolatry. K
Tim, do you remember in Knox’s diatribe on the idolatry of the Mass, he site Pope Gregory introducing the invocation of the saints called the Litany. Thecfirst hour of the 1st recitation by scores of Papist, all of those who recited were sticken deadly ill by God. Knox sites many times when men have changed the sacrifice of God, Saul, Aaron’s sons, Pope Gregory, God dealt harshly. K
Knox said, Paul and Barnabas told men that faith in Christ’s blood alone justified a man, yet the Papist tell us we must buy and add their many murmered Masses. Just like Paul hadto address those who would add the Mosaic law to faith.
Augustine said ” we have been deprived go the body of Christ until He comes again” Augustine Faustus 6:5 ” While we consider it NO LONGER a duty to offer sacrifices , we recognize as part of the mysteries of revelation, by which the things prophesied were foreshadowed, For they were our examples, and in many various ways they pointed to the sacrifice which we NOW COMMEMORATE, now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and HAS BEEN offered in due time, sacrifice IS NO LONGER BINDING as an act of worship, while it retains symbolic authority.” Revelations 1:17 ” I am the living one, and I was dead, and behold I LIVE FOREVER more.” No immolation for sins, no sacrifices remain for sin. No coming down out of heaven to an altar to die again. God man who hung on a cross is not the the little baked wafer god. K
Tim, the article by Lux Lucet is outstanding, and clear. I know I say the over and over again and it seems simple, but the physical understading of what Jesus said by the woman at the well, the Jews in John 6, and Trent and Catholics is unbelief. It seems obvious and simplistic. But they are unbelievers that dont understand His words Spiritually and belive them. Just like the Jews who walked away because the thought He was speaking of literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood, catholics do the same. And since it is unbelief, and unbelievers, they understand not the things of God. Lux very aptly says evangelicals must come to grips with who Rome is, the synagogue of Satan all wrapped up in its idolatry. Thanks for providing that article, and I hope our Catholic interlocutors will read it. K
Kelvin,
” Just like the Jews who walked away because the thought He was speaking of literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood, catholics do the same”
Actually Kelvin, the unbelievers were like you. They refused to accept Jesus’ words.
John 6 starts out with Jesus talking about Faith and being the Bread of Life. Midway through though, He takes a radical shift and starts talking about chewing on His Flesh and drinking His Blood.
Drinking His Blood, Kevin? How could that be taken in a figurative sense? ” Drink my blood” means to believe? Where? It was forbidden.
This is an either/or.
Tim likes Daniel. Read it. The term “to eat someone’s flesh” meant to revile, or slander someone. So, by your logic, Jesus said, “Unless you loath and revile me, you have no life in you”.
Speaking of Daniel, why is Tim hunkered down here when he should be over on CCC getting schooled by Nick?
Jim, ” the words I speak to you are Spirit, the flesh profits nothing.” Perspicuous! Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things NOT seen.
TIM–
You quoted:
Augustine: “Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth.” (Augustine, An Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8)
Paul VI: “after the consecration they are the true body of Christ—which was born of the Virgin and which hung on the Cross as an offering for the salvation of the world—and the true blood of Christ—which flowed from His side” (Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei, 52)
Who is right? Augustine? Or Paul VI?
Both are. Look and see. Here’s Augustine’s quote in more of an entirety:
“For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. But does the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, ‘It is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing.’…But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, ‘Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him.’ John 6:54 Some disciples of His, about seventy, were offended, and said, ‘This is an hard saying, who can hear it?’ And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, ‘Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you:’ they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, ‘This is a hard saying.’ It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He says not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learned that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learned. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and says unto them, ‘It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ John 6:63 Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.”
You see what Augustine was saying was that people were taking Jesus as saying “come take a bite from my arm here and you will live.” How absurd! He was explaining to them who stayed to take it spiritually and not carnally.
Look also at the last sentence of his quote. The Eucharist must be visibly celebrated and spiritually understood. And that is exactly how we celebrate it. There is no carnal flesh and blood in the elements. That would be really icky! But Christ gives us his Flesh and His Blood in the form of bread and wine. I don’t know how He does it, but I believe he does, just like the early Christians did. We discern Him not with our carnal senses, but in our faith. This is why Augustine calls it a mystery.
Tim, as a former Catholic, you should have known this.
TIM–
Oh and by the way, your quote (Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei, 52)
mysterium fidei means “mystery of faith”. So don’t take what Paul VI says in a carnal way, either.
Bob, please take 5 minutes out and read the article Tim provided by Lux Lucret in the sidebar by our names. If you take 5 minutes out and read the article Tim provided he helps everyone understand the proper interpretation of John 6. John 6:40 ” For this is the will of the Father, that everyone who beholds the son and BELIEVES in Him WILL have eternal life, and I will raise Him up on the last day.” Believing in Christ provides eternal life. John 6 is about coming and believing. Notice, like the woman at the well who took Jesus literally, the Jews who took Him literally walked away in UNBELIEF because the words were to be spiritually appraised. Thats why Catholics don’t have saving faith, it takes faith to understand what He was saying. ” I am the bread of life, he who comes to me will not hunger, and he who BELIEVES in me will never thirst.” Eating His flesh and drinking His blood is coming and believing. Without FAITH it is impossible to please Him. The need for the physical has always been UNBELIEF. There is room on the mercy train, but your going to have to give up you idol of the Roman Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Mass to have true saving faith. Hope your having a good day. K
J. C. Ryle Church,” According to Calvin, God is the Lord of the conscience, the church is not, and the church has no legislative power , it has only to proclaim the law of Christ. The church and its leaders and sacraments do not function between God and His people in a mediatorial manner, because in scripture Jesus christ alone is clearly said to be our only mediator and means of saving grace. 1 Tim. 2:5. ” For there is one mediator between man and God, the man Jesus christ. There is no evidence anywhere in the NT that the Apostles appointed bishops. There is no evidence anywhere in the NT that Jesus Christ or his Apostles called the church into being wit such a rigidly structured institutional hierarchy as purported by Roman Catholicism. Outside of scripture, the history of the early church denies that it organized itself in a manner described by the Catholic church. RC Priesthood contradicts NT, 1 Pet.2:5-9, Romans 5:1-2, Ephesians 2:18, James 5:16, Col 3:16. RC hierarchy were not godly followers and obedient servants of Christ.” K
Kevin,
“There is no evidence anywhere in the NT that Jesus Christ or his Apostles called the church into being wit such a rigidly structured institutional hierarchy as purported by Roman Catholicism. Outside of scripture, the history of the early church denies that it organized itself in a manner described by the Catholic church. ”
6 months ago I gave you a list of 27 references to Peter being the authority in the early Church. That says structure.
Why have you not been joining in the fun over on Swan’s Song Blog? It sure is nice not having you there. We can actually stay on topic. I am holding court on about 4 different threads.
I am the only Catholic amongst the Protestants. It’s great, So many Calvinists all to myself. ( Of course, I am using my secret pen name. )
Kevin,
I really want to “show you off” on Beggars All. I have mentioned several times that many Calvinists are low brow bigots who say “death wafer” because they are too damn stupid to say anything else.
They think I am an s.o.b. and so I need you to prove that you guys say the most offensive things, not us.
C’mon over and lets see who gets thrown off the blog first. Of course, you have the advantage as you are “one ‘ them”.
See you there.
PS, what’s with Tim? Feeling off his feed? They are talking Daniel on CCC but he is laying low over here. Is he sick or something? Shine his shoes, dust him off, and send him on over.
( But you stay here where you belong ).
Jim, said ” tgey think im a s.o.b.” what would make them think that? You said” whats with Tim?” I dont know, why dont you ask Tim. He seems the same to me. You said ” but you stay here where you belong.” I thought you wanted me over at Beggars All to make you look bad, I mean good. Lol I dont argue anymore Jim, God is sanctifying me. As much as I thing RC doctrine is of the devil, I love the people. Im praying that God will change your heart from genuflecting and doing chin ups to earn your salvation at Mass, to coming to the supper in trusting in Christ alone for your salvation. Where instead od a sacrifice for your sins, you see the supper as spiritual nourishment and thanksgiving for a salvation you posess by faith alone being justified by faith alone in the blood that has already been shed. K
Kevin,
What if I said Swan has a reference/link to Tim Kauffman in his latest article on Tim Staples new book?
Aren’t you still posting on Green Bigots?
Is Tim being sanctified too? Has he gotten off the debating team also? Nick is writing about Daniel and Tim is only lurking.
Okay. fine. I am glad you two 8 Balls are done blogging.
TIM–
You said; “I understand the statement, Bob. If I am understanding you correctly, you believe the statement in all caps represents exhaustively the full spectrum of Justin Martyr’s thinking. I get that. In a paragraph in which Justin Martyr finds a symbol in the Old Testament that includes flour, he relates that to the bread and wine.
But later on in the same book, when he actually describes how the Eucharist is celebrated, he distinctly separates the bread which is broken from the thanks that are offered”
Ok. I have no problem with thanks and praise and prayers of the faithful being offered as a sacrifice. We do that today as well. But you say that when Justin Martyr says “the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the Cup of the Eucharist” was a goof-up on his part? You don’t believe for one second that BOTH the prayers, praises, and thanksgivings AND the Bread and the Cup of the Eucharist are included as offerings?
Bob, Martyr in no way could mean that. Do you just refuse to read the Augustine quote that I provide that said there are NO MORE sacrifices for sin. But you have to reject that, don’t you. Because you must believe as a member of the Catholic church that when the Priest say Hocus Pocus he creates God Man into the little baked wafer and sacrifices Him again for the sins of the quick and the dead. You have to believe that is where you earn your salvation and increase in merit and grace. Because if you don’t believe that you the Roman church says you can’t be saved. But Bob, you are in a dilemma, because scripture says if you do believe that, you have undermined the faith alone in the blood already shed. Christ is not in heaven with a big bowl of blood, and every time you do the mass he gives you a little more for your sins and salvation. We are saved by faith alone the ALREADY shed blood as he applies that sacrifice on our behalf. He is NEVER to die again according to Romans 6, so he can’t be Rome’s immolation. Augustine says we commemorate the blood already shed! Please read the Knox article I provided for you. He is maybe the greatest Reformer on the subject. K
Tim, the verse 11 in Malachi works against the Roman Catholic position. Fiirstly, it isnt future reference because its full of normative phrases. He is simply comparing how Israel was peverting the pocess of the sacrifice by offering not unblemished animals, they’re best as they were commanded, but the Pagans were pure in their sacrifices. It isnt future reference to the supper or the cross, but it is instructive against Rome’s position, and it is one of knox’s main points. You cannot varry from God’ established sacrifices. And the Mass violates the final sacrifice in every way. It actually a violation that both elements arent presented, it is a violation of faith in the already shed blood, and it makes the wafer the idol, and it pulls down Christ from glory to be a continual sacrifice. Rome is perverting the sacrifice as did Israel by offering a blemished imperfect lamb. Oh the wrath that will be accumulated thru participating in a mass. K
Bob, you asked,
No. But I also know some church fathers had a hard time passing up an allegory, even if they had to stretch to make it fit. Assuming each father was not insane, we ought to presume some coherence in their thought and try to find it. If Justin Martyr says the bread becomes Jesus’ blood by transmutation, (which means a complete change of form and substance), and he also believed that Jesus’ blood is offered at the altar, then how are we to understand his words in chapter 118 of the Dialogue with Trypho?:
It seems to me that he is contrasting old covenant sacrifices of blood, with the new covenant sacrifices of praises and giving of thanks (in accordance with (Hebrews 13:15), or which many of the early church fathers testify. If transmutation means what you say it means, Justin Martyr is contrasting old covenant sacrifices of the blood, with the new covenant sacrifices of blood. Is that what you think he is saying? You continued,
No, I do not believe “for one second that BOTH the prayers, praises, and thanksgivings AND the Bread and the Cup of the Eucharist are included as offerings” in the early church.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, imho Your ongoing discussion with Bob on if the supper is a sacrifice should be highly instructive for all readers of the difference between Christianity and and false religion especially the false religion of Rome. The Mass is the summit of their worship specifically because it is the re sacrifice of Christ for their sins, and the offering up of themselves for their sins, and the meriting of increase of justice and grace for a final justification. For them to deny that supper is a sacrifice for sins and that it is a commemoration, thru faith alone in Christ alone, in the already shed blood for sins is to accept the gospel and deny the Roman religion. Tim, as men like Knox, yourself, and many others before have shown clearly, that to belief that the Roman Eucharist is the body, blood , soul, divinity substantially and to believe it is a sacrifice for sins, is a denial of the true gospel of Christ in the highest order. We have to look no further that your discussion with Bob, of someone who is trusting in Christ alone for their salvation and someone who is trusting in and ongoing work and sacrifice of the Mass. They aint the same. One is Christian, the other is Antichrist. I hope there are many lurkers who can see this clear distinction and understand why there can be no holding hands with Roman doctrine. May God remove the veil of our dear friends so that they may see the christ of scripture. Blessing to all K
Kevin wrote, “Tim, imho Your ongoing discussion with Bob on if the supper is a sacrifice should be highly instructive for all readers of the difference between Christianity and and false religion especially the false religion of Rome.”
I agree. Reading all this discussion has been very, very helpful, in discerning the truth of Scripture from the errors of Rome. Thankyou, both Tim and Kevin, for the effort you put in to these discussions.
John, you are welcome. When one does a study of the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church and its claim to church history up against scripture it becomes clear what a hoax it is.
Jim, The barometer a Reformed apologist should use in his war for the truth against Romanism should always be thexamount of character assasination and dismissal one receives from Catholic Apologists. Just look at who Wosbald and Jonathan Nnd Catholic Nick are talking about in utter trashing today on their site. Tim and I and Swan, and even Greenbaggins. The more they think someone is a cook, troll, haters, unsophisicated, not high minded, etc, the more that person has battled Roman doctrine well. If they like you,and will admit you to their ececumenism club ( although they have no respect for some of the Reformed doing the tango for them over there, with a deep need for acceptance), then you have failed imho to a great extent. Thats what Catholics do when they get told what their doctrine really is, they trash the person and tell them how smart they are and how dum you are. I say if you dont like the heat, stay out of the kitchen. When you call me stupid, oaf, etc. Or my educated friends just laugh at you, I smile and say thank you Lord. Tolerance can tolerate everything but intolerance. Look at Tim, there hasnt been a man more above reproach and in love that that man in all his posts. But they disregard him as they do me. Its because of the content of what we say. Satan hates the truth, and Rome is the synagog of Satan. God bless Jim.
TIM–
You said:
“Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.” (Justin Martyr, The First Apology, chapter 67)
What is missing is a statement of the president “offering the bread” or the people participating in “that which has been offered.”
That’s because he didn’t say it in Chapter 67. He said it in Chapter 65: Administration of the sacraments
“But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.”
(incidentally, that is an interesting statement in itself –“we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our WORKS also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be SAVED with an everlasting salvation” Hmmm…he must not be Calvinist.)
” Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and HE TAKING THEM, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and OFFERS thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give toEACH OF THOSE PRESENT TO PARTAKE OF THE BREAD AND WINE MIXED WITH WATER OVER WHICH THANKSGIVING WAS PRONOUNCED, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.”
And he goes on to say in the very next line in Chapter 66:
“And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that THE FOOD WHICH IS BLESSED BY THE PRAYER OF HIS WORD, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, IS THE FLESH AND BLOOD OF THAT JESUS WHO WAS MADE FLESH.”
Tim, are you really trying to say that the prayers of blessing of the elements were somehow excluded from being offered with the prayers of the faithful?
And it is clear to me that the early Church did in fact believe that the elements were Jesus’ Flesh and Blood who was made flesh, meaning the “100% flesh” part of the hypostatic union– spiritually not carnally.
Incidentally, and interesting word “transmutation” that was used here:
trans·mu·ta·tion
/ˌtransmyo͞oˈtāSHən,ˌ/noun: the action of changing or the state of being changed into another form.
•Biology historical
the conversion or transformation of one species into another.
Now, why do you supposed they believed that? Who taught them that? The Apostles?
Bob,
I wrote, “What is missing is a statement of the president ‘offering the bread’ or the people participating in ‘that which has been offered.’,” to which you responded,
But what you cited in chapter 65 still doesn’t have him “offering bread“. It only has him offering prayers. It says,
Yes, bread and wine are brought and the president takes them. I get that.
Yes, the president gives praise and glory to God.
Yes, he takes the bread and offers thanks, which is what I have been saying. Notice that he doesn’t say “and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to offer these things.”
Yes, he offers prayers and thanksgivings, which is what I have been saying.
Yes, the president prays, and the people agree after he has given thanks.
Yes, they partake of the bread over which thanks have been pronounced, just like Jesus did at the Last Supper (Luke 22:17-19). Like I said, “What is missing is a statement of the president ‘offering the bread’ or the people participating in ‘that which has been offered.'” Instead, what we have is the president offering thanks, the people participating in that over which thanks have been pronounced. Where does the president “offer” the bread in chapter 65? Where do the people participate in “that which has been offered” in chapter 65?
You continued,
I’m still looking for where the president offers bread. By what means do the words, “THE FOOD WHICH IS BLESSED BY THE PRAYER OF HIS WORD” turn into “The food which is offered”? If the president’s thanks are offered along with the thanks of the people, how does that turn into the president offering bread?
You’ll need to take that up with Rome, Bob. It is clear to them that the early Church did in fact believe that the elements were Jesus’ Flesh and Blood and Soul and Divinity, meaning 100% of the flesh part and 100% of the divinity part of the hypostatic union. You continued,
As I noted in The Rise of Roman Catholicism, Justin Martyr says too much even for Rome. Transmutation indeed means, as you noted, “changing or the state of being changed into another form”, as in “the supposed alchemical process of changing base metals into gold.” By way of example, Ignatius used “transmute” to describe what Jesus did at the wedding at Cana, as in, He “transmutes existing substances … the water which became wine” (Ignatius of Antioch, To the Philippians, ch. 7). Jesus did not change water into wine under the appearance of water. He changed it into wine under the appearance of wine. Transmutation means a complete change in both form and substance—the very thing Rome says does not happen in Transubstantiation:
Transmutation means not even the species of bread and wine remain. Are you saying the Apostles clearly taught transmutation?
The funny thing is, if I say Pope Gelasius denied that the nature and substance of bread ceased to be in the elements, Rome responds that the doctrine and vocabulary of transubstantiation was not sufficiently developed in the 5th century for Gelasius to be able to express the truth of transubstantiation, but it was apparently sufficiently developed in the 2nd century for Justin Martyr to speak of “transmutation.” Rome claims that the doctrine of transubstantiation was so fully developed by the end of the 1st century that Ignatius could make an argument for it, but that the doctrine was so underdeveloped by the 4th century that Chrysostom could deny that the bread ceased to be bread.
The truth is, the identification of the bread as His body and the wine as His blood simply puzzled the early church as they tried to find a way to express it in practice. Justin Martyr’s “transmutation” is evidence of his loss for words, not evidence that the early church really believed “that the elements were Jesus’ Flesh and Blood.”
Thanks,
Tim
Bob, do you think if you capitalize everything it proves your faulty argument. Martyr ” who HAS BEEN WASHED with the washing of the remission of sins” Sins have already been remitted. Martyr ” But we being washed by Him and has been convinced and believed our teaching ( professed faith), bring him to the place where we offs hearty prayers ( still now eucharistic sacrifice for sins) being found good citizens and keeper of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation ( descriptive of a new believer saved form his sins since he has already said he believed and had his sins forgiven.) He is simply instructing him to obedience of faith. You said” he must not be a Calvinist.” No, he must not be a Romanist. There is no mention of the Priest saying magic words and making the bread into Jesus body and sacrificing it again for sins. He says his sins are remitted by believing. Martyr ” gives a Holy Kiss and offers thanks, and all the people say Amen! Why did you capitalize each participant participating in the bread and the wine, thats what we do at communion. He doesn’t say its another offering for sins of the quick and the dead. We simply remember and give thanks, offering prayers of thanksgiving. You keep capitalizing offer as if thats going to mean Roman Mass and resacrifice of the Lord for sins. Martyr wasn’t Roman catholic. Our faith is certainly nourished by the supper. This doesn’t mean transubstantiation. You don’t read Tim’s articles, because he talks about what is meant by transmuted. Bob, I have read the greatest book on Trent and the Mass twice by a Luther Theologian Chemnitz. You will not find ANYWHERE a Mass as a sacrifice again for sins. You are looking for something thats not there Bob, and you are refusing to accept the Augustine quotes I gave you, and Tim’s numerous articles he has presented against transubstantiation in the early church, and against the sacrifice of the Mass. It is the human invention of the Roman Catholic church, which cannot be confused with Christ’s church. Blessings
Bob, the book of John which gives the greatest description of the upper room of all the gospels and Romans which lays out the gospel more than any other book, neither one mentions the Lord’s supper. In fact, there are only four verses on the Lord’s supper in all the Epistles. And yet Rome makes doing its Mass the summit of necessity for salvation. If thats so why does John and Romans, the two great books on faith and c salvation make NO mention of it? You would think if participating in a continual sacrifice were necessay for salvation they would have told us ?
May I suggest of all Catholics on youtube former Catholic Priest Richard Bennett on the sacrifice of the Mass. He was a Catholic for 48 years and a Priest for 28 years. Here is a summary from the book of Hebrews on the finality ofChrist’s one time perfect sacrifice for those unfamiliar with the book of Hebrews. Hebrews 7: 27 ” who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.” 8:13 ” when He said, New Covenat, He made the first obsolete.” 9:25-28 ” nor was it to offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is no his own. Otherwise He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He was manifested to put away si by the sacrifice of Himself. Annd inasmuch as it is appointed man once to die and then comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.” 10:10 “By God’s will we have been sanctified thru the offering of the body of Christ once and for all. 10:14 ” For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” 18: ” Now there is forgiveness of theses things, the is no longer ANY offering for sin.” For the Catholic who is willing to take off their Roman glasses and read these verses, one must conclude the sacrifice of the Mass to be perversion of the gospel.. God Bless everyone.
To be fair, here is some info on Richard Bennet.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040619070941/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ30.HTM
Also to be fair, I didn’t say anything about offering for sin. Ya’ll implied that. If I am not mistaken, one is supposed to examine himself and confess his sins and reconcile before partaking of the Lord’s Supper. The Methodists teach that. Scripture teaches that. And I’m pretty sure a Catholic is supposed to go to confession for mortal sins and there is a penitential rite before the liturgy of the Eucharist. I think it is called the Kyrie–Lord have mercy. This is a completely different sacrament.
So the Catholics teach that as well.
But, you acknowledge that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice, don’t you Tim? Maybe only for prayers, praises, and thanksgiving, but it is a sacrifice none the less, right?
Bob,
You asked,
No, I do not.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob, to be fair, here is what the author of the link you just provided said ” Protestants have , of course, teachers, Pastors, commentators , and interpreters of the bible , and excellent one’s at that – often surpassing Catholics in many respects” I agree with him Bob, and Catholics should start listening to them. They search scripture to find its meaning. For instance I just provided you definitive biblical evidence from Hebrews ( all the pertinent verses) that Christ’s sacrifice was offered once at consummation of the ages, and it put sins way. By one offering we are sanctified. There is no NT Priesthood or any sacrifices for sin remaining. My guess Bob, is you haven’t even read the evidence I provide from the word of God in the book of Hebrews. Because you never make an argument from scripture Bob. You know why? You can’t. It doesn’t exist in scripture. You cherry pick the internet with Catholic propaganda, or throw up a bunch of quotes from the church fathers and start capitalizing and reading Roman Catholic dogma into them, and then think that will convince men here who have searched the scriptures for a long time. I will repeat again, show us from scripture or the early church any evidence for a sacrifice at the Lord’s supper for sins, or transubstantiation. Good luck, they don’t exist. If Jesus meant for the communion bread to be the sacrifice for our sins, he could have saved himself allot of trouble dying on a cross. The truth is the only thing that could save us is the death of a God Man who lived a perfect life, fulfilled the Law in our place which required perfection, and His shed blood for our sins. I will say this to you one more time because I care about your soul. The scripture is clear we are saved by faith alone in the already shed blood of our savior. Before your head hits the pillow tonight, think about this, To participate in a Roman Catholic Mass is to deny faith in the one time sacrifice and already shed blood for our sins. It is idolatry and the denial of Christ. It is antichrist. Isaiah ” To the Law and to the testimony” The only place to find salvation Bob is sola scriptura, only in the Word. God bless you.
Your hemorrhaging at the mouth is really annoying. Did you even read what I just wrote above? Why don’t you back off and let Tim answer.
Bob, I answered your post to me. I havent bothered your talk with Tim. The Supper is an oppurtunity to remember, commemorate the sacrifice already made for us. We confess our sins and offer up praise and thanksgiving for something he has already done for us, and for something He has already given us, forgiveness and eternal life. There are no more sacrifices in the New Covenant, the only one paid it all. The hymn says ” oh how He loves you and me, oh how He loves you and me, what He did there brought us hope from despair, oh how he loves you, oh how He loves me, oh how He loves you and me. Bob, here is the “good news” He paid it all, it is finished! Place your faith in the finished work of Christ, in the blood already shed for our sins, and rejoice. See ya Bob
BOB – I see you are still giving them a good fight. You have to remember that Tim, Kevin, etc… Are like that MIT professor (Grubber?) the Obamacare architect. They will knowingly leave things out, quote out of context, etc… They are part of the elect ivory tower. They will make you see the truth even if it means not being an honest broker. What they fail to see is that if you MUST rely on untruths to get to your truth, then what you have cannot be the truth.
CK, you wrote,
Can you give me an example of this? I think what you call knowing omissions and intentional decontextualizations are merely different interpretations of the same data. Can you give me an example of when I knowingly left something out? I realize that because your starting assumption is that the early church was Roman Catholic and therefore any conclusion to the contrary must have taken the data out of context, but that’s a very subjective standard by which to judge me. As you know, there are no posting constraints here, so please feel free to provide evidence that I have taken things out of context. I’ll gladly correct them if I have.
Thanks,
Tim
Psalm 118:8 ” Its better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.” Aquinas, whose theology is the summit of Roman Catholicism, built his theology on the faulty teachings of Gratian’s Decreetum which was based on over 300 forged quotes of Popes 3rd century and before, and forged Augustinian documents. And the documents such as the donation of Constantine only prove what many Christian men have long known, the allusion which is Catholicism. Justin Martyr 100-165 speaks of ” those who repented, and who are no longer were purified by the blood of goats and sheep, or the ashes of a Heifer, or by the offerings of fine flour, but by FAITH thru the blood of Christ and thru his death. Maybe this can put to rest any idea of Justin Martyr believing sacrificing bread as Christ for sins. According to Martyr we are purified thru faith in the shed blood of the Lamb and thru his death. And in the words of Augustine we now commemorate the sacrifice which HAS come. Its finished. K
TIM–
You said: “I’m still looking for where the president offers bread. By what means do the words, “THE FOOD WHICH IS BLESSED BY THE PRAYER OF HIS WORD” turn into “The food which is offered”? If the president’s thanks are offered along with the thanks of the people, how does that turn into the president offering bread?”
So you are saying the prayer blessing the bread is not offered. What are they doing with the prayer? Seems to me they are using it as a supplication asking God to bless (sanctify) it. If not, what purpose does it serve?
You also said: “You’ll need to take that up with Rome, Bob. It is clear to them that the early Church did in fact believe that the elements were Jesus’ Flesh and Blood and Soul and Divinity, meaning 100% of the flesh part and 100% of the divinity part of the hypostatic union.”
That quote was from Justin Martyr on the early Christians’ faith. According to you that is NOT Rome. So, then I gather you don’t believe in the hypostatic union? Of course, during Justin Martyr’s time, that had not been firmly established. You’re not Arian, are you Tim????
You also said: “As I noted in The Rise of Roman Catholicism, Justin Martyr says too much even for Rome. Transmutation indeed means, as you noted, “changing or the state of being changed into another form”, as in “the supposed alchemical process of changing base metals into gold.”
” Are you saying the Apostles clearly taught transmutation?”
No, my question was: “Now, why do you supposed they believed that? Who taught them that? The Apostles?”
I am simply asking questions. Somebody taught them that. Justin Martyr used that word transmutation for a reason in the context of the Lords Supper.
So it is suggested that Justin Martyr is saying, by using the word “transmutation”, that the faithful are nourished by something transmuted–substance and form. Justin Martyr says “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught”
They didn’t just come up with this out of the clear blue. Someone must have taught them that. Justin Martyr says:
“And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things WHICH WE TEACH ARE TRUE, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living AS CHRIST HAS ENJOINED.”
So whoever taught them this says it came straight from Christ.
So, could it have been Apostolic?
You also said: “Transmutation means a complete change in both form and substance—the very thing Rome says does not happen in Transubstantiation.”
Well yeah. It is obvious that they weren’t holding in there hands little likenesses of Jesus to eat. That would be freaky. But notice the important words of Justin Martyr: “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God”.
Not as common bread and common drink. Tim, when you have communion in your church service, do you believe it is just crackers and grape juice?
You also said: “The truth is, the identification of the bread as His body and the wine as His blood simply puzzled the early church as they tried to find a way to express it in practice. Justin Martyr’s “transmutation” is evidence of his loss for words, not evidence that the early church really believed “that the elements were Jesus’ Flesh and Blood.”
His loss for words in using transmutation only says to me that Justin Martyr didn’t know how to explain the working of the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ miracle of the Eucharist.
You also said: “Bob, You asked,
“But, you acknowledge that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice, don’t you Tim? Maybe only for prayers, praises, and thanksgiving, but it is a sacrifice none the less, right?”
No, I do not.
Thanks,
Tim
And I say:
No, Thank You, Tim.
I have never done so much study on the Eucharist before. It has really bolstered my faith in the Real Presence. The light shown on it by this discussion is giving me greater delight in partaking of Christ’s Flesh and Blood. I’m sad we only have it once a month.
Thanks so much, and May God bless you, Tim.
–Bob
BOB as a catholic you can have it every day! Just saying…. and then there’s adoration.
CK said to Bob ” I can see you are still giving them a good fight” We aren’t fighting with Bob CK. Tim has provided detailed and I will say it again detailed evidence from the Fathers that they did not believe in transubstantiation nor the bread as a sacrifice for sins in the supper. But frankly CK, your Methodist/ Catholic friend Bob has made no valid argument from scripture or the Fathers that give proof otherwise. Capitalizing allot and putting up a long list of quotes from the fathers doesn’t qualify as an argument. I will put this quote up from Augustine one more time for the both of your benefit. And in the end you will have to abandon accusations and projection to let this pierce your heart, because frankly your salvation depends on it. Augustine Faustus 6:5 ” While we consider it no longer a duty to offer sacrifices, we recognize sacrifices as part of the mysteries of revelation, by which the things prophesied were foreshadowed. For they were our examples, and in many and various ways they all pointed to the ONE sacrifice that we COMMEMORATE, Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and has been offered in due time, sacrifice is NO LONGER binding as an act of worship, which retains its SYMBOLIC authority.” Nothing left out, no Ivory tower. And CK when you stop making fun of the fact that Christians take comfort in the assurance scripture gives in being elect, then you will have abandoned your need to take credit for your salvation, and you will trust in Christ”s righteousness alone will give all the glory to God. Romans 8 ” Who can bring a charge against God’s elect, can you CK, can Bob. I think not. And finally this is what you said ” and they will make you see the truth, even if it means not being an honest broker.” First off CK, no one but God can make you see the truth. And your continual charge against Tim or any of us being dishonest about what we believe is hollow. You have been provided ample evidence here, and you and Bob chose to read none or little of it. So please just say you disagree, instead of accusing people of dishonesty. CK, if you will take an honest look at your church you will see the untruth you rely on, and what you have cannot be the truth. To bad your church chose to follow the semi pelagian Aquinas instead of Augustine, things may have been different. But God knows, and will always preserve his elect. God bless you and Bob and have a great thanksgiving. K
Bob, said ” so I take it you don’t believe in the hypostatic union” You can’t rent His humanity from his divinity Bob.
Christ’s presence in action in thd Word isnt transubstantiated. Chalcedon said distinction but never division. Even in the hypostaic union the transcendant Deity of the Son cannot be contained in or confused with the human nature. Same in a sacrament the sign isnt the thing signified but is a visible sign of the invisible reality. Christ’s body is in heaven and according to Augustine unavailable to the church until He returns. Rome collapses head into the body, Eucharist etc. Idolatry.
Bob said ” It obvious they weren’t holding in their hands little likenesses of Jesus, that would be freaky” You mean like holding in your hands Jesus substantially in your hand under the appearance of a wafer, how freaky is that? Cmon Bob! The reason the bread isn’t common Bob is because it reminds us of His body breaking and the wine reminds of of His blood being shed for us. It nourishes our faith Spiritually. Without faith, the Spirit, and the Word its just bread and wine. I believe this is what he means by transmutation. You said ” No thank you Tim, I have never done so much study on the Eucharist, It has bolstered my faith in the real presence.” Bob, you have bamboozled none here, you are Catholic and you have from the beginning here been clear you worship the Roman wafer God, and believe the Mass is a continual sacrifice for your sins. And posturing as if we our arguments have driven you to that position is laughable. You can’t put new wine in old wineskins. God bless you.
And you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear either.
So there!
CK–
Here is Augustine against Faustus 6:5. in context:
“With all this, you venture to denounce the sacrifices of the Old Testament, and to call them idolatry, and to attribute to us the same impious notion. To answer for ourselves in the first place, while we consider it no longer a duty to offer sacrifices, we recognize sacrifices as part of the mysteries of Revelation, by which the things prophesied were foreshadowed. For they were our examples, and in many and various ways they all pointed to the one sacrifice which we now commemorate. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and has been offered in due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship, while it retains its symbolic authority. For these things ‘were written for our learning, upon whom the end of the world has come.’ What you object to in sacrifice is the slaughter of animals, though the whole animal creation is intended conditionally in some way for the use of man.”
You see that Augustine was talking about the Jewish sacrifices of animals–young bullocks, lambs, turtle doves–the shedding of innocent blood on ones behalf in the Old Covenant. Because of the New and Everlasting Covenant, Jesus was sacrificed once on our behalf, so we do not have to kill and cut up animals and sprinkle their blood on the altar and eat the meat in sacrifice as an act of worship. That really is Good News!
And now you know…..the rest of the story.
CK, what was that you said about leaving stuff out or quoting out of context? I don’t know about the “ivory tower” thing. What’s that mean?
BobCK, ” now that THIS sacrifice HAS BEEN offered in due time, we consider it NO LONGER binding as an act of worship, though it holds SYMBOLIC authority. The sacrifice we now COMMEMRATE.” Is it a wonder why your having problems acusing us of untruth. I hope you read carefully. Now that the sacrifice has come, no more Augustine says so, and more importantly Hebrews 10:18 should be enough for you. But you will continue to defend Rome’s sacrlidge. K
And you will continue to use “your” when it should be “you’re”, misspelling “commemorate” and “accusing” and “sacrilege “, and running on sentences without proper punctuation. But, I blame the cell phone and texting, not your sloppiness. I love you so much.
God Bless you too.
” For they were our examples and in may and various ways they all pointed to THE ONE SACRIFICE which we now COMMEMORATE. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and HAS BEEN offered in due time, SACRIFICE is NO LONGER binding as an act of worship. It retains its SYMBOLIC authority.
Pope Gelasius ” The sacrament of the body and the blood of Christ, which we receive is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature, yet the substance or nature of the bread ad the wine does not cease. And assuredly the IMAGE and the SIMILITUDE of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.” Maybe those 12th century Roman Catholic idolators who came up with transubstantiation should have checked with the early Pope. Like we have said Bob and CK, the early church would have recognized almost nothing from Roman Catholicism. We thank God that God sent the Reformers to dismantle the ecclesiastical machinery that was mostly human in origin and content and save the Apostles and the early church from the hair splitting academics who perverted the gospel.
Kevin LOL – if anyone stood up and talked about the Eucharist and Mary like the Church Fathers in a Calvinist church they would be escorted out.
In a Catholic Church we’d all nod in agreement and some might be moved to tears.
CK, said ” If anyone stood up and talked about the Eucharist and Mary like the church fathers in a Calvinist way they would be escorted out. In a Catholic Church we’d all nod in agreement and some might be moved to tears.” CK, you can’t be that obstinate can you? The Early church Fathers did not worship Mary in place of Christ, calling her queen of heaven, mediatrix of all graces, assumed into heaven sinless, and they didn’t believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or sacrifice the bread ( the glorified body of Christ) as an offering for sins. So, no in a Protestant church we obey scripture and worship God with all of our heart soul and minds, there is no room for Mary or any other created thing. We worship God in Spirit and truth. And no, we would never adore the bread or worship the bread as if it were Christ. The purpose of the Lord’s supper is to remember and commemorate the blood already shed once for our sins, and to give thanks. It nourishes our faith as a confirmation of god’s grace. And we understand that Jesus in the Roman religion is nothing more than another member of the congregation, contained in a little piece of bread in a prison, still on the cross an eternal victim, while Mary ( there are huge statues of her all over) sits high above looking over Him. And yes I’m sure you cry over Mary and the Roman eucharist. you worship them as God. As it says in Romans 1, you worship the creature rather than the creator who is forever blessed amen. And CK, the reason you won’t ever know that the early church fathers weren’t Roman Catholic, and did not believe in anything like the real presence or a sacrifice of the Mass, is because you will come on this site and never read any of Tim’s articles like you have told me, nor will you go to one fold blog and read the definitive evidence in the fathers against the real presence and the sacrifice of the Mass. You were baptized into a false religion, full of idolatry, and only God can change your heart. We believe the scripture is clear, idolators and those being justified by their love and obedience will not enter the kingdom of heaven. God bless.
Augustine ” Let them who eat, eat on, and let them that drink, drink, let them that hunger and thirst, eat life, drink life. That eating , is to be refreshed, but you are sin such wise refreshed, as that whereby you are refreshed does not fail. That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat life, drink life, you will have life, and the life is entire. But then this shall be, that is, the body and blood of Christ shall be each man’s life, if what is taken in the sacrament visibly is in truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying ” It is the Spirit that gives life, but the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you are Spirit and life.” The great Augustine had the Reformed view, how about that.
“Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them unto thy soul with hoops of steel;
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatch’d, unfledg’d comrade. Beware
Of entrance to a quarrel; but being in,
Bear’t that th’ opposed may beware of thee.
Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice;
Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgment.
Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express’d in fancy; rich, not gaudy;
For the apparel oft proclaims the man,
And they in France of the best rank and station
Are most select and generous, chief in that.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all- to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man. ”
The Great Shakespeare had some good advice , too.
Farewell. My blessing season this in thee!
Farewell, Kevin, and remember well
What I have said to you.
And they make good rod and reels, too!
Tim, have you ever read ” Evidence against the real presence” One fold blog. It is really good and extensive. He goes thru Clement of Alexandria Paedagogus books 1-6, Orgin, and Turtullian. Rome has deleted Clenent and Orgin from their encyclopedia because they cant reconcile their positions of the symbolic interp. He makes a convincing argument that the flesh sacrificed for our sins on the cross was not the glorified body of Christ that RC says is the real presence sacrifice of the Mass, John 7:39. If you read it let me know what you think. Its very good.
KEVIN–
You said: ” Rome has deleted Clenent and Orgin from their encyclopedia because they cant reconcile their positions of the symbolic interp.”
What a load of baloney! Kevin, did you actually go to the Catholic Encyclopaedia and check it? I did. The writings are there in their entirety.
Man, you swallow their bait hook line and sinker. You need to learn to do your own research instead of checking your head at the door.
Bob, Pope Clement VIII revised the Roman martyrology and was persuaded to DROP Clement of Alexandria from the calendar of Baronius. Benedict against many protests agreed with the removal. According to Catholic Encyclopedia Clement of Alexandria had faulty interpretations. In a nutshell , the Catholic church has a problem with Origen and Clement use of metaphors and symbols. It dodges the sacrifice of the Mass. The only baloney is Bob and CK baloney! You” guys” are doing gymnastics to support doctrines that didn’t exist in the early church, namely Transubstantiation, and a sacrifice of the Mass, the Lord in his glorified state, fall under their accidents, the appearance of air! Without question Rome just shoves all the evidence against their doctrines under the rug, like with Origen, Clement of Alexandria on the Supper. And as Tim has shown in Eating Ignatius, Rome reads him in reverse too. They built there case for those two doctrines out of air, and that win’t no baloney.
KEVIN–
My apologies. I misunderstood that, when you wrote Catholic Encyclopaedia, you meant the calendar of saints instead of the encyclopaedia. I didn’t realize those words were interchangeable. All of their writings are still there.
Incidentally, Clement equates the faithful as children and the Flesh and Blood of Christ as the milk from the breast of God. As Mr. Spock would say “Fascinating.”
Here is some more info for the inquiring minds:
Photios I of Constantinople writes against Clement’s theology in the Bibliotheca, although he is appreciative of Clement’s learning and the literary merits of his work. In particular, he is highly critical of the Hypotyposes, a work of biblical exegesis of which only a few fragments have survived. Photius compared Clement’s treatise, which like his other works was highly syncretic, featuring ideas of Hellenistic, Jewish and Gnostic origin, unfavourably against the prevailing orthodoxy of the 9th century. Among the particular ideas Photius deemed heretical were:
1)His belief that matter and thought are eternal, and thus did not originate from God, contradicting the doctrine of Creatio ex nihilo.
2)His belief in cosmic cycles predating the creation of the world, following Heraclitus.
3)His belief that Christ, as Logos, was in some sense created, contrary to John 1 but following Philo.
4)His ambivalence towards docetism, the heretical doctrine that Christ’s earthly body was an illusion.
5)His belief that Eve was created from Adam’s sperm after he ejaculated during the night.
6)His belief that Genesis 6:2 implies that angels indulged in coitus with human women. In orthodox Catholic theology, angels are considered genderless.
Down to the seventeenth century he was venerated as a saint in Catholicism. His name was to be found in the martyrologies, and his feast fell on the fourth of December. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Pope Clement VIII his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of Cardinal Baronius. Benedict XIV maintained this decision of his predecessor on the grounds that Clement’s life was little known, that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church, and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least suspect. Thus Clement is not revered as a saint in contemporary Roman Catholicism, nor is he considered a saint in much of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Clement’s veneration is somewhat limited; he is commemorated nonetheless in Anglicanism. As well, the Universal Catholic Church’s cathedral in Dallas is dedicated to him.
In my opinion, this guy seemed to have believed in some “irregular” stuff to say the least.
Bob, actually Clement of Alexandria is said to be the most brilliant and respected Fathers of the early church, absolutely orthodox. If you will go to ” One fold blog” and read Evidence against the real presence in the early church fathers, you will get the most comprehensive deailed, in context views of the fathers available. I doubt you will come away unconvinced, even though you may still disagree. It is the best look at the Supper in the fathers I have read aside from Tim’s stuff. I hope you will read it with an open mind.
Thanks, Kevin. I read it, and it is quite good. Some valuable material there, for sure. I highlighted some quotes from early church fathers that I had previously overlooked.
Thanks for the reference.
Tim
Tim, great. I thought his in depth sitings on Clement of Alexandria, Orgin, and Turtullian and the symbolism only enhanced the quotes from Augustine and your work on Ignatius. He does a remarkable job, and his evidence from the early fathers against the real presence is powerful. His point about the flesh that was sacrificed for our sin was not yet glorified, so Rome’s repeated attempts to sacrifice Him in his glorified state is even more revealing. Tim, you have built a powerful case here against the lie of Romanism, dare I say maybe the best in modern day. It keeps getting stronger. I thought there might be some useful material on one fold blog. K
“He makes a convincing argument that the flesh sacrificed for our sins on the cross was not the glorified body of Christ that RC says is the real presence sacrifice of the Mass, ”
Christ was glorified after death. He is glorified now.
Perhaps one day you will actually take the time to understand what you hate and malign out of total ignorance.
( For your sake, let us hope you are merely ignorant. I often suspect you are coming not just from ignorance but from actual malice ).
Jim, it is a legitimate argument that the flesh that was sacrificed for our sins was at calvary before He was glorified. John 7:39 tells us He was not yet glorified and the Spirit had not yet been given. After Hid death ” who was declared Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord.” But now the Spirit has come Rome’s Mass of sacrifice in a glorified state goes against scripture. because we have the Spirit and have been resurrected in Christ in the already/ not yet. Scripture says we have been seated in the heavenly places with Christ, we are no longer in our sins positionally, sealed in the Spirit, adopted, heirs of the promise that Peter says cannot and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for us. How about that eschatological reality from scripture. And yes for Rome He is an eternal victim on an altar and a cross. My bible tells me He is risen fro my justification. And Paul says to say differently means one is still in their sins. I believe Roman Catholics who hold to Roman Doctrine are still in their sins, because they haven’t place their faith alone into the already shed blood for their sins. The Mass is the greatest rejection of saving faith there ever was invented by man. ” Fo if Christ has not risen, your faith is useless and you are still in your sins” 1 Corinthians 15. 1 Corinthians 1:19 ” If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are all men most to be pitied. But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.” Not the hope of resurrection from the dead if we do enough penances and Masses. Faith alone in Christ alone our resurrection. You have a choice Jim, you can continue to go back to that Mass over and over and never accumulate the righteousness for heaven, or you can trust in Christ alone our righteousness. It was either Clement or Gelasius who said if God were to count our works, none would stand. K
Tim,
You need to get over to CCC and straighten those damn Catholics out on the book of Daniel.
Jim,
Thanks. I finally got some time today and went over and read Nick’s thoughts on Daniel 2. There is some faulty logic in his post as well as some rather grand assumptions, but I largely agree with him on the identification of the Four Beasts.
However, when he says, “the only ‘candidate’ that fits this prophecy/interpretation is the Catholic Church,” he seems to think that there was only one position to be filled, and Rome filled it. But there were two positions available, and Rome filled the wrong one. As I mentioned in One Kingdom Too Late, and The Rise of Roman Catholicism, Rome was about 300 years too late to be the rock, the kingdom that grew up and took over the whole world.
There was another “office” open at the end of the 4th century: Antichrist. And to borrow Nick’s phrase, “the only ‘candidate’ that fits this prophecy/interpretation is the Catholic Church.”
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, I have been in prayer that God will direct the lurking Catholics who are searching for truth, He would direct here. One Kingdom to late and The rise of Roman Catholicism are must reads and frankly your exchange in the comments with Catholic Nick is where the rubber meets the road. I hope our Catholic friends will read with an open heart. K
TIM–
Do you like apples?
More interesting things from Augustine while reading about the flesh and blood of Christ:
“Let us praise Him, let us magnify Him who has wrought the very righteousness which we have; who wrought it in us, Himself. For who but He who justified us, wrought righteousness in us? For of Christ it is said, who justifies the ungodly. Romans 4:5 …And fall down before His footstool: for He is holy. What are we to fall down before? His footstool. What is under the feet is called a footstool, in Greek ὑ ποπόδιον, in Latin Scabellum or Suppedaneum. But consider, brethren, what he commands us to fall down before. In another passage of the Scriptures it is said, The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool. Isaiah 66:1 Does he then bid us worship the earth, since in another passage it is said, that it is God’s footstool? How then shall we worship the earth, when the Scripture says openly, You shall worship the Lord your God? Deuteronomy 6:13 Yet here it says, fall down before His footstool: and, explaining to us what His footstool is, it says, The earth is My footstool. I am in doubt; I fear to worship the earth, lest He who made the heaven and the earth condemn me; again, I fear not to worship the footstool of my Lord, because the Psalm bids me, fall down before His footstool. I ask, what is His footstool? And the Scripture tells me, the earth is My footstool. In hesitation I turn unto Christ, since I am herein seeking Himself: and I discover how the earth may be worshipped without impiety, how His footstool may be worshipped without impiety. For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping.”
Wow! By Augustine’s exegesis, it is not idolatry to worship the earth, in fact it is sinful NOT to worship the earth. So, if the earth is to be worshipped in the sense that it is the Lord’s footstool, then it follows that the bread and wine are to be worshipped in the sense that it is Christ’s Body and the cup is His blood.
How ’bout them apples!
Thanks, Bob,
I do enjoy apples. I have addressed this particular quote both in the blog and in the comments multiple times—including more than one interaction with you. Just search for footstool if you’d like to read our prior exchanges on this quote.
The irony is that Augustine was trying to understand what to do with Jerome’s mistranslation. The correct translation of Psalms 99:5 is “worship at his footstool, for He is holy,” but Jerome rendered it, “adore his footstool, for it is holy.” This confused Augustine. In the end Augustine says no one partakes of the Lord’s supper without first becoming Christian, and the Christian worships Christ before coming to the table, and I don’t know a Protestant that would disagree with that.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
Whether or not Augustine understood it, his reasoning still stands.
“And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped:”
Augustine acknowledges that Christ has come in the flesh, and that very flesh he gave for us to eat for our salvation, is to be considered and worshipped by all who come to the table.
“we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping.”
Augustine says “in that sense” meaning with our mind on Christ crucified, we can worship Him in the bread and the wine as His flesh and blood and it NOT be idolatry; moreover, it would be sinful not to worship it.
Even though Jerome may have mistranslated, you said in the end, Augustine says no one partakes of the Lord’s supper without first becoming Christian(acknowledging Christ’s Incarnation and Crucifixion), and the Christian worships Christ before coming to the table (in the sense that the very flesh he gave for us to eat for our salvation, is to be considered and worshipped by all who come to the table), Augustine’s reasoning is sound, and I don’t know a Protestant nor a Catholic that would disagree with that.
You also said: “I have addressed this particular quote both in the blog and in the comments multiple times—including more than one interaction with you. Just search for footstool if you’d like to read our prior exchanges on this quote.”
Tim, have you ever asked yourself why you have had to address this particular quote numerous times?
TIM–
And while speaking of the footstool being the earth, why do YOU think God told Moses to remove his sandals while he was on Mt Sinai?
Thanks, Bob,
Does it, though? The text of Psalms 99:5 has the Lord, not His footstool, as the object of our worship: “Exalt ye the LORD our God, and worship at his footstool; for He is holy.” Augustine read a bad translation and thought it said, “Exalt ye the Lord our God, and adore his footstool, for it is holy.” (Douay-Rheims). In the former, God is the object of our adoration. In the latter, the footstool is.
So, when Augustine says,
…that is the point at which his reasoning fails, for the Psalm did not bid him “to worship the footstool,” yet he proceeds to reason as if it had. Thus his reasoning does not stand at all.
Besides, if one is to bow down to the footstool, and no one eats of the footstool without first having bowed down to it, and bowing down was forbidden on the Lord’s day because “We pray standing, on the first day of the week, … [because] On this day the rules of the church have educated us to prefer the upright attitude of prayer,” how on earth was Augustine to bow down to the footstool before partaking of it?
By the way, Moses was commanded to remove his shoes because the place where he stood was holy ground, being, as it was, in the presence of the Lord. (Exodus 3:5)
Thanks,
Tim
Bob said ” Wo! by Augustine exegesis, it is not idolatry to worship the earth. in fact it is sinful NOT to worship the earth.” Hilarious! I wonder who said worship the L ord your God with all your heart, soul and mind.” Sounds like a commandment I heard somewhere. If you worship God with all of your heart souls and mind in Spirit and in truth thru faith alone, can there be any room to worship Mary, Saints, or the earth on earth day. What does ALL mean? A little crack open for the gift of the Holy Mother, or maybe the earth. the sun, and the stars. Augustine, wasn’t advocating worshiping the footstool or the earth, or bread, or bread’s mother. All of heart soul and mind leaves NO room for anything or anyoe else, not mamma or anybody. Romans 1: For they new God , but they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an IMAGE in the form of corruptible man” For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie” Be careful Bob how hard you defend your idolatry. Blessings K
KEVIN–
You just have to blurt out the words before you even think! Those are Augustine’s words, not mine. If you have a problem with Augustine’s reasoning, take it up with him. Otherwise, who pulled your string? I certainly didn’t. I was addressing Tim.
Bob, have you ever asked yourself why we have addressed this so many times with you? You think it makes a difference for Catholics that Jerome who was ignorant of Hebrew translated repentance to do penance, or declare righteouss to make righteous. Its the wrong gospel. You better believe it is important the differnce of worship His footstool, and at His footstool. Is it any wonder Jerome had constant nightmares of being beaten black and blue in judgment. Think about it Bob. Give up your idols, come in faith alone in Christ alone. God bless.
Tim,
Thanks for keeping Kevin busy on this blog and Green Bigots.
For weeks I have been having a clear run on Beggars All without his constant ranting and topic changing.
Bob and CK arent interested in Tim’s articles because they wont like what they will find, the truth. They are interested in worshiping His footstool, rather than at His footstool. We havent been given the gift of the Holy Mother. Iow we havent been given the gift of idolatry, “full” worship. Even though true Christians who posess the Spirit of God are told by scripture ” we have All things pertaining to life and Godliness. True Christians who worship in Spirit and truth thru simple faith lack in nothing.
Tim wrote about Bob the following:
“I do enjoy apples. I have addressed this particular quote both in the blog and in the comments multiple times—including more than one interaction with you. Just search for footstool if you’d like to read our prior exchanges on this quote.”
This is really the base fundamental problem in discussing anything with Bob or Jim. They don’t read and when they do read something they don’t comprehend it, nor remember it.
They use the same arguments over and over and over again without ever listening, hearing or learning anything. The only positive thing about this is that hopefully those lurking on the site will read (as I did for a while) how foolish it is to disagree with someone, have them corrected of their error, and then have them bring up the same exact error they were corrected on multiple times before by asking the same question as before. It is circular reasoning and hopefully others see it too and recognize that Rome makes mostly the walking dead mummies who just stay their course to self destruction.
Bob, you put your trust in your church and yourself instead of the finished work of Christ where it belongs. But thats what religionists do. Blessings.
WALT–
You said: “This is really the base fundamental problem in discussing anything with Bob or Jim. They don’t read and when they do read something they don’t comprehend it, nor remember it.
They use the same arguments over and over and over again without ever listening, hearing or learning anything. The only positive thing about this is that hopefully those lurking on the site will read (as I did for a while) how foolish it is to disagree with someone, have them corrected of their error, and then have them bring up the same exact error they were corrected on multiple times before by asking the same question as before. It is circular reasoning and hopefully others see it too and recognize that Calvinism makes mostly the walking dead mummies who just stay their course to self destruction.”
Huh….That’s exactly the way I feel about you guys. How uncanny is that?
Bob wrote:
“Huh….That’s exactly the way I feel about you guys. How uncanny is that?”
There is a big difference between those who use Scripture as the basis for their belief system, and those who use the Roman Catholic church and pope as the foundation of their belief system.
Watch this video to learn the distinction from two former Roman Catholics. We need to start an organization that is made up of all the former Roman Catholics joining together to testify again Rome…
There’s an organization made up of former Calvinists at called to communion that can testify against Geneva.
Walt you do realize that almost everyone back in the day was illiterate. They all relied on someone else telling them how to interpret scripture. Sola Scriptura was impossible for Early Christians to follow. This alone supports the assertion that did not exist prior to the 1500s. It’s a man made novelty.
Walt my man you have confidence that Scripture is inspired because of the Catholic Church and the Pope! this is my theory, the antichrist (which was already in control of the church) pulled a fast one on us all and tricked us into thinking the gnostic gospels were not inspired when in actuality they are and the gospels we have now are the fake ones!
CK wrote:
“Walt my man you have confidence that Scripture is inspired because of the Catholic Church and the Pope! this is my theory, the antichrist (which was already in control of the church) pulled a fast one on us all and tricked us into thinking the gnostic gospels were not inspired when in actuality they are and the gospels we have now are the fake ones!”
You seem to forget that my views are that the false, backslidden Romish church (in being) broke away from the true and faithful church (in well being) in the 4th century, and became the true antichrist and whore in Revelation from 800 AD and began to really show her evil nation after the 11 century.
Rome has had nothing to do with Scripture validation outside the errors promoted by Jerome with the Latin text.
You obviously know little if anything about the faithful text.
CK wrote:
“Walt you do realize that almost everyone back in the day was illiterate. They all relied on someone else telling them how to interpret scripture. Sola Scriptura was impossible for Early Christians to follow. This alone supports the assertion that did not exist prior to the 1500s. It’s a man made novelty.”
I’m not sure where you got these false assumptions.
The fact is that it is true nobody could read Latin which was the way the Romish church controlled the minds and hearts of the laity.
That is why Wycliff, Luther, Tindale, Knox, Calvin translated the Scriptures into the common language of the people, and allowed them to read and learn in their native language.
Your idea that people could not read is a false claim…as many could read, but were forbidden by Rome to learn Latin language unless they were a Priest.
CK said ” they all relied on someone else telling them how to interpret scripture. Sola scripture was impossible for early Christians to follow. ” CK buys the propaganda she has been taught. The Word of God established the church thru the superintended work of the Spirit. The early church fathers held the word of God in the highest order. It is because of their commitment to it that we know they didnt teach transubstantiation, sacrifice of bread, or justification by accumulated righteouness thru doing 7 sacraments. Why do you attack those who believe God’s word is perfect, holy, and infalinble? Why do you put your trust in a man as head, and not God and his word? Romans 10:17 ” faith comes thru hearing, and hearing the word of God. Only the infallible word of God produces true Christians, The Holy Spirit isnt a church, or a Pope, He is God.
TIM–
You said: “…that is the point at which his reasoning fails, for the Psalm did not bid him “to worship the footstool,” yet he proceeds to reason as if it had. Thus his reasoning does not stand at all…By the way, Moses was commanded to remove his shoes because the place where he stood was holy ground, being, as it was, in the presence of the Lord.”
My apologies. You misunderstood my meaning. I’m not talking about worshipping footstools! That is just plain silly. I’m talking about how Augustine uses his logic, which is sound. Your looking at the hole and not the donut.
Any Christian knows that it is silly to worship the earth. Even in looking at Moses taking off his shoes because God told him the ground he was standing on was Holy. It is not taken that the ground itself is Holy because of itself. It is like you say, the ground is holy because Moses was in the Real Presence of the Lord.
In the same line of logic of Augustine, one must discern Christ’s Real Presence of Flesh and Blood and worship before partaking of the bread and wine.
In Augustine’s line of reasoning, it would be a sin NOT to worship. As St Paul says:
(1Co 11:26ff) For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.”
And it’s not so much your posture as you worship, but that you do worship–standing, sitting, kneeling, prostrate, in a wheelchair, on crutches, on rollerskates, or with half of your body gone and laying in a hospital bed –you must worship.
Tim, how do you celebrate the liturgy of Communion in your church? Is their a websight that would show the procedure?
By the way, this is an interesting explanation of Presbyterian teaching on communion as a sacrament.
http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/today/communion/
Do you agree with it, Tim?
Bob, did you think that Westminster did not understand what the Sacraments are? They are listed in Chapter 27 of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647).
CHAPTER 27
Of the Sacraments
I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him: as also to put a visible difference between those that belong to the Church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.
II. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.
III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.
IV. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospels, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither or which may be dispensed by any but a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained.
V. The sacraments of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the New.
CK said to Walt” this is my theory, antichrist who was in controll of the church, pulled a fast one on everybody” CK shows she does not know the word of God, she can only see the Roman church as the church. If CK new 2 Thessalonians she would know the antichrist comes from within the church putting himself up as God in the church. CK also doesnt realize that the group that this man leads teaches with false signs and wonders. And what does Paul say to the CK’s of this world. Lets listen. 2 Thess. 2:11 ” For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence that they will believe what is false.” John tells us the people who are exempt from this delusion 1: 12″ but to all who did receive HIM, who believed in His name, he gave the right to become children of God.” And then we find out why these arent deluded ” who were born of God, not of blood or the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” CK is in the church born of man to which she has submitted and therefore is under the delusion of 2 Thess 2:11, but those in John 1:12 know they are part of the true church. How? The Word tells them, and the Word is infalible. Blessings
Kevin – CK shows she does not know the word of God, she can only see the Roman church as the church.
Me – I’ve told you several times, I’m not a “she”. Let go of the paranoia. Second, the only reason you know it’s the word of God is because someone told you it’s the word of God (Sacred Tradition, both oral and written). Again, you have to deny the obvious otherwise your religion makes even less sense.
And yes Roman Catholicism is the church Christ founded.
And I forgot to add “and your missing seven books because of man made tradition”.
2 Peter 1:19 ” So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as a lamp shinning in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts, But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter on one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” CK, You would do well to pay attention to the prophetic word made more sure which is not an act of human will ( no church gave us the word of God), but men moved by the Holy Spirit of God. The Spirit gave us the Word, it is God breathed ( perfect, infallible by the nature of coming out of the mouth of God), not the men who put it in the binder. God took devout Catholics Tim, Walt, and Eric W, and thru his Spirit by the word changed them into bible believing Christians. Thats how I know they are my brothers, they love his Word, it is the bread of life. But to those who are perishing it is a dead letter in need of a Pope and a church. You have chosen to put your trust in a church and yourself instead of the finished work of Christ. But my prayer is God will change you as he did these men by his Word. Have a good day.
And you know what the bible says for it is written:
“for it is the Word of God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth”
not the church.
WALT–
You said: ” We need to start an organization that is made up of all the former Roman Catholics joining together to testify again Rome…”
They tried that already. It’s called the Reformation.
Yes, Walt is right. The Reformation must, and will, live on.
Tim
The Bob said to Tim in an earlier post ” so if the earth is to be worshiped in the sense of His footstool” And now Bob says to Tim ” ” Im not talking about worshiping footstools” Welcome to Roman Catholicism, changing doctrine when necessary. Bob, your speaking out of both sides, kinda like the RC apologists. You know kneeling until it means standing. Apply my rule Bob, read Catholic doctrine, believe the opposite, arrive at biblical truth. For example, if they say pray to Mary, pray to God. If they say justification by partially by your righteouness and partly by Christ, belive exclusively in the finished work of Christ. If they say Pope as head, belive in Christ as head. And if they tell you they are the true church, believe they arent. Works every time. K
KEVIN–
You said: “Blah,blah,blah,blah,blah, and blah,blahblahblahbvlahblahblahblah. Like always your rule is blahblhablahblahblahblahblahblhablah.”
Again you didn’t read my post. This is Augustine’s logic. You got a problem with his logic, take it up with him. Now I’ve got a rule, if I post something, Kevin’s response is running off his mouth just to here himself talk because he says the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and blahblahblahblahblahblahbalbhalbalhalablah. And that is even misspelled.
Kevin unless you walked with Jesus 2000 years ago you are relying on mere humans for assurance that the collections of books in your bible are inpired. It was also a mere fallible human who removed 7 books. We don’t even know who wrote Hebrews yet it was decided that it should be included in the binder. Who decided this? Why do you trust they got it right?
Faith in His Word. When you believe in the finished perfect Word for your salvation the scripture becomes the bread of life. By the inner witness of the Spirit by and with the word of God. Thats why the scripture is the bread of life to those saved and for those who arent it is a collection of books in search of church confirmation. None of my Christian friends have ever thought the bible was anything but the infallible word of God suffient alone for salvation and all things pertainig to life and Godliness. 1 John 2:27. I always laugh when I hear people say they left for full communion or worship of Rome. It tells me they never had saving faith. Because the word tells believers we have ALL things pertaining to life and Godliness. Your faith is eclessial, in a church and in a Pope. Churches and Popes cant save people, only the gospel, who is Christ.
CK said ” what do you trust they got it right” 1 John 5:13 ” these things II have been written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life.” Let me ask you CK, if God required a church with a sacramental system to be saved, how could John tell those who simple believe that he has written to us to make sure we know we have eternal life? You should want to run out the door of that synagog so fast. Why? Because Rome won’t give you that assurance. If Rome won’t allow you to have the simple assurance offered by the Apostle, why would you ever trust that system? And if God intended for us to be graded at the end based on how we did with sacraments, how could the Apostle John tell us we can know now that we have eternal life, and how could the Apostle Paul tell us we have been justified and have peace with God? How could he tell us there in NOW no condemnation for those in Christ? Why would he tell us in Romans 10:4 that by confessing and believing resulted in righteousness and salvation? The reason is because He didn’t come to help us accumulate the righteousness necessary, but He came to provide the righteousness necessary thru faith. We are bad, real bad. ” The heart of a man is continually wicked and evil” But He was good. And its hard to keep a good man down. He fulfilled the law and redeemed us, provided the righteousness necessary for salvation Romans 5:19. K
WALT–
I just think it is interesting to contrast what is being said in these two quotes with the sacrifice of the Mass:
(Westminster) III. “The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.”
Sounds exactly like a priest(ordained minister) speaking the epiclesis (word of institution) where upon invoking the power of the Holy Spirit to infer grace of benefit to worthy receivers.
(From Presbyterian Belief About Communion) We believe that the sacrament of the Lord’s Table presupposes, deepens and assists personal faith. We cannot wait until we think we are appropriately worthy for such a divine encounter. In presenting ourselves and OFFERING God our imperfections, our weaknesses, even our SINFULNESS, God may make us worthy. Our worthiness is found in putting our trust in God and, in faith, relying upon God’s mercy.
Sounds a lot like the congregational response in the Mass which says “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.” And I do find it interesting that the Presbyterians do in fact offer to God even their sinfulness at the Lord’s Table, which is contrary to what I have been told on this very blog.
It’s like what Paul says in Rom 12:1 “Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.”
Sounds very “Westminster-Presbyterian-Methodist-Catholic-Early Christian-Augustinian-Martyrian-Biblical” to me. But not Timish. How odd.
Bob, you wrote,
In what way have you heard contrary to this “on this very blog”?
Thanks,
Tim
test
test
The Reformers were adamant with Rome who taught a sacrament was merit for thecstrong and worthy insead of grace for the weak. Its thevdifference between a false gospel and and the truse gospel. Romans 11:6 ” If its by grace it is no longer by works, or grace is no longer grace. Grace is no longer grace in Catholicism, it is the means of exchange on the church’s merit system. Rome= you do you level best God gives grace. Gospel= God gives us grace and we do our best. Romans 4:16 says if a Catholic wants to be saved by grace alone, it will have to be by faith alone. K
So, you don’t think the early church taught that the Lord’s Supper was a sacrifice? Or that the bread and wine were not offered? Or that the bread and wine were not just a commemoration? Read this:
“The priest who imitates that which Christ did, truly takes the place of Christ, and offers there in the Church a true and perfect sacrifice to God the Father.”–St. Cyprian wrote to the Ephesians circa 258 A.D:,
St. Ephraim :
“Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit.
And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: ‘Take, all of you eat of this; which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven.’ But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body.” –”Homilies” 4,4 ca.. 350 A.D.,
“After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ’s body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. The He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out….Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: ‘This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood, As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old.” –”Homilies” 4,6 ca. 350 A.D.,
Athanasius:
“You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. ‘And again:’ Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine – and thus His Body is confected.”–”Sermon to the Newly Baptized” ante 373 A.D.,
St. Cyril of Jerusalem:
“Contemplate therefore the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for though sense suggests this to thee, let faith stablish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ. –”Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 6]”
“These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man’s heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart’, partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine’. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:–To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen.”–St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis 4,1, c. 350 A.D.:
St. Epiphanius of Salamis:
“We see that the Saviour took [something] in His hands, as it is in the Gospel, when He was reclining at the supper; and He took this, and giving thanks, He said: ‘This is really Me.’ And He gave to His disciples and said: ‘This is really Me.’ And we see that It is not equal nor similar, not to the incarnate image, not to the invisible divinity, not to the outline of His limbs. For It is round of shape, and devoid of feeling. As to Its power, He means to say even of Its grace, ‘This is really Me.’; and none disbelieves His word. For anyone who does not believe the truth in what He says is deprived of grace and of a Savior.”–”The Man Well-Anchored” [57] 374 A.D.
St. John Chrysostom:
“It is not the power of man which makes what is put before us the Body and Blood of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. ‘This is My Body,’ he says, and these words transform what lies before him.”–St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Treachery of Judas” 1,6; d. 407 A.D.:
St. Ambrose of Milan:
“You perhaps say: ‘My bread is usual.’ But the bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; when consecration has been added, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ. So let us confirm this, how it is possible that what is bread is the body of Christ. By what words, then, is the consecration and by whose expressions? By those of the Lord Jesus. For all the rest that are said in the preceding are said by the priest: praise to God, prayer is offered, there is a petition for the people, for kings, for the rest. When it comes to performing a venerable sacrament, then the priest uses not his own expressions, but he uses the expressions of Christ. Thus the expression of Christ performs this sacrament.” –”The Sacraments” Book 4, Ch.4:14.
St. Cyril of Alexandria:
“Christ said indicating (the bread and wine): ‘This is My Body,’ and “This is My Blood,” in order that you might not judge what you see to be a mere figure. The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood, and by receiving these we come to share in the life-giving and sanctifying efficacy of Christ.”–St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 26,27, 428 A.D.:
“We have been instructed in these matters and filled with an unshakable faith, that that which seems to be bread, is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the Body of Christ, and that which seems to be wine, is not wine, though it too tastes as such, but the Blood of Christ … draw inner strength by receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice.”
–St. Cyril of Alexandria, “Catecheses,” 22, 9; “Myst.” 4; d. 444 A.D.:
And of course my favorite and the Calvinist’s hero:
ST AUGUSTINE:
“You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”–”Sermons”, [227, 21]
Their words– not mine.
Bob, thank you for these citations. I will be happy to interact with all of them, but for the moment, let us consider Cyril of Jerusalem. You provided the following quote:
That is an accurate citation. However, a few verses earlier, he explains that although the bread and wine are “the Body and Blood of Christ,” they are only so figuratively:
Yes, in this chapter he is emphatic that we receive the Body and Blood of the Lord in the bread and wine, and he is equally emphatic that he means this figuratively, not actually.
I note, as well, that Roman Catholicism also uses a citation from chapter 19 of his catechetical lectures, but does so in a rather selective way. Catholic Answers provides the following citation from Cyril of Jerusalem to prove that he believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist:
But that is not the whole quote. Here is the entire chapter:
Thus, Cyril was saying that at the invocation, the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the same way that meats sacrificed to idols “become profane” at the invocation. Unless Rome is willing to acknowledge that Cyril believed in the “real presence” of the devil in meats sacrificed to idols, then his statement that the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood “in like manner” as the meats become profane, must be taken to mean that the bread is set apart for sacred use at the invocation, in the same way meats are set aside for profane use at the invocation.
This is very far from proving that Cyril believed in the Real Presence. He appears, from his words, to believe that even after the invocation the bread was a figure for Christ’s body, and that it became holy in the same manner that meats sacrificed to idols became profane.
Tim said – “Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ,
Me – this is catholic teaching. Accidents stay the same but the essence changes. I’ll need to look at the rest of what you posted later. Figure does not necessarily mean figuratively.
Btw have you addressed BOB’s full quote on Augustine challenging your belief that he didn’t believe the Eucharist is Jesus?
Look at it CK, its essence doesn’t change. Augustine said we have been deprived of the body of Christ until He comes again. Priestcraft can’t change that.
Tim I just re read the quote and to me he’s saying the bread and wine becomes the Body of Christ (essence changes and becomes something completely different and sacred though the accidents remain the same). The meat is still meat except it’s devoted to something which is not Sacred.
His statement would have supported your view if he had said something like “it becomes the body of satan” or something similar.
CK, what do you think that Augustine meant when he said the church has been deprived of the body of Christ until He comes again? Or when He said understand spiritually you are not to eat of this body which you see, nor drink the blood that poured out from His side? What do tgese mean to you? Or do you just ignore what he says? I provided you 2 famous Augustine quotes against transubstantition and continued sacrifice, why did you ignore them? Didnt fit the RC mantra?
Kevin – BOB has posted Augustine’s full quote debunking or at least questioning your interpretation. You ignore it and then continue to present things out of context. Honesty in not one of your virtues.
Thanks, CK. At least we can agree that there are different way to read him. Consider, for example, Cyril’s comments in Catechetical Lecture 21:
Notice that after the invocation, the ointment—even though it is no longer “plain ointment,” is nonetheless symbolical of a separate reality—it is not the reality itself. The oil is not what it signifies. But it nonetheless signifies something.
Keep in mind that this is thrice in his catechetical lectures (here and in Lecture 19.7), and in Lecture 22.3 that Cyril has said the Eucharist—after the invocation—is like something else. It is like the chrism which after the invocation remains oil and is holy but nonetheless symbolical, and it is like the meats sacrificed to idols, which after the invocation are consecrated to evil, but nonetheless remain just meat, and it is like the Lord’s supper in which the bread and wine serve as figures. Just as the oil remains oil, and the meat sacrificed to idols remains meat—the Eucharist is like these things and remains bread and wine. This does not speak of real presence or transubstantiation. It speaks of symbolism and figures and simile.
I understand your perspective. I just don’t agree with it. You, of course, are welcome to respond in kind. But it’s not like the Roman Catholic argument is airtight on Cyril. Not on the Eucharist, anyway.
Thanks, and you are always welcome here.
Tim
Tim there are many ways to interpret the bible on what it says about the Trinity, Baptism, Eucharist etc.. But there’s only one truth. BOB and I (mostly BOB) have shown you SEVERAL quotes from Austine and other fathers that prove without a doubt they believed in the real presence. The quotes you provide as evidence are disproven when taken in context or are dubious at best.
Something also to consider is how did it happen that all the ancient Christian churches get this wrong? From your point of view the more ancient the church the less they understood the church Fathers.
open your eyes and heart and at least consider the orthodox church.
CK, yes you have shown me “SEVERAL quotes from Austine and other fathers that prove without a doubt they believed in the real presence,” or at least you have shown me several quotes that have been used as evidence for the real presence. As I have said, I will get to them. But I am taking them one at a time and I am attempting to read them in their context.
As I read Cyril, I see him saying oil is set aside through invocation and becomes special oil, in the same way the bread of the Eucharist is. As I read Cyril, I see him saying meat sacrificed to idols is set aside through invocation and becomes profane meat, in the same way the bread of the Eucharist is set aside for holy purposes. If Rome wants to use his citation on the Eucharist being “no mere bread,” then Rome has to take Cyril’s comments on oil and meat, as well—and yet Cyril was not talking about making Satan present in the meat sacrificed to idols, and Cyril was not talking about transubstantiating oil into something else, only the accidence of oil remaining.
How to you understand Cyril’s comments on meat sacrificed to idols? Is Satan ingested when we eat meat sacrificed to idols? When Paul said we may eat meat sacrificed to idols without raising any question on conscience unless perchance it cause a weaker brother to stumble (1 Corinthians 10:27-28), that tells me that Bob’s theory of the “real presence” of Satan only exists in the mind and heart of the person who believes it to be so, but Satan’s “presence” is not real at all, and Satan is certainly not ingested at all.
How to you understand Bob’s statement?
Do you believe that Satan is really ingested in meat sacrificed to idols in the same way that Christ is ingested in the Eucharist? Do you believe the power to transubstantiate meat into Satan really exists in the hands of a pagan priest? Do you believe in the “real presence” of Satan in meats sacrificed to idols?
You asked,
I do not believe the ancient Church got this wrong. I just believe Rome has read its own doctrines retroactively into the early church fathers. But I might ask you the same question: “how did it happen that all the ancient Christian churches get it wrong on Mary’s sinfulness?” The earliest interpretations from the Early Church fathers on Luke 2:35 had the sword piercing Mary’s soul being sinfulness and doubt. From your point of view, the more ancient the church, the less they understood Roman Catholic doctrine, right?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “That is an accurate citation. However, a few verses earlier, he explains that although the bread and wine are “the Body and Blood of Christ,” they are only so figuratively:
“Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood;”
Which is exactly what I was getting at. Cyril says the bread and wine are the figure and not the Body and Blood–which is exactly what the Catholics teach. It is Jesus’ Flesh and Blood under the appearance (figure) of bread and wine.
You also said: “This is very far from proving that Cyril believed in the Real Presence. He appears, from his words, to believe that even after the invocation the bread was a figure for Christ’s body, and that it became holy in the same manner that meats sacrificed to idols became profane.”
No. It is not. After the invocation, the bread becomes the figure, not Christ’s body. What you are trying to make him say is that after the invocation, the figure of Christ is found in the bread, making Christ the figure instead of the bread. That’s what you believe, isn’t it, that Catholics worship bread, instead of the figure of bread?
His logic, like Augustine’s is sound.
In the same way that Christ is being ingested in the Eucharist, it follows that Satan is ingested in meat sacrificed to idols.
Of course we know, as Paul taught, that there is nothing wrong with the meat itself if it is sacrificed to idols, because we Christians know that there is only one God. It’s the evil associated with it that is why we should refrain from it so that we do not cause others to fall.
CK, said ” Kevin, honesty isnt one of your strong qualities.” I think you are confusing me with Lynn.
Bob said “so you dont think that the early church taught that the Lord’s supper was a sacrifice, or the bread and wind were offered.” No we dont. Scripture said Christ offered himself once, it perfected us and put sin away. ” There are no more sscrifices for sins” What part of that dont you get? No more! None of the 37 quotes you provide have anything to do with transubstantiation or re breking of Christ’s body for sins. The early church fatgers I nly spoke of offering prayer and thanksgiving, confessing our sins. No sacrifice of the Mass that is efficacious for sins. If you really want to know what these quotes mean you will read “One fold blog” and Tim’s most detailed accounts of most of your quotes. But you wont read them Bob. Your destined to work for your forgiveness at the Mass. It wont get you to heaven. Only God can change your heart and convince you of the truth . K
KEVIN–
You said: “Bob said ‘so you dont think that the early church taught that the Lord’s supper was a sacrifice, or the bread and wind were offered.” No we dont.”
I don’t believe that “bread and wind” were offered either. That would be sort of crass. But I digress….
“The priest who imitates that which Christ did, truly takes the place of Christ, and offers there in the Church a true and perfect sacrifice to God the Father.”–St. Cyprian wrote to the Ephesians circa 258 A.D
Looks like St. Cyprian, who incidentally is considered anti-Nicaean (that’s pre-Roman Catholic to you) believed in “priestcraft” there “in the Church” to offer a “true and perfect sacrifice to God the Father.”
ST AUGUSTINE:
“You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”–”Sermons”, [227, 21]
Bread on the altar? Sounds like a sacrifice to me. What else would you do with it on an altar?
Your are right. YOU don’t believe it. But THEY certainly did.
Its called the Lord’s supper. It is a meal at a communion table, not a sacrifice on an altar. The early fathers never advocated anything but sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. You dont believe Hebrews which clearly says in 10:18 ther remain no more sacrifices for sin. Trent was the dogmatising of all that was Roman Catholicism, that the Mass was a real and true sacrifice for sins, re breaking the Lord’s body over and over, imperfect, without lasting effect, like the OT sacrifices which could not save and were administered by Priests that die. Catholicism is just a replay of OT judaism, against which the writer of Hebrews viehemently warns. The Reformers being brilliant tgeologians and former Catholic Priests, knew the early church never taught transubstantiation and a re breaking of Christ’s body in the Mass. Calvin said if we way all the evidence of the fathers it would fall heavily on our side. But hey, Tim summed it up Christians trust in the one sacrifice that finished our salvation, and Catholics trust the sacrifice of bread of communion that they must do 5000 times to earn enough grace and justice for heaven. But you wont find that anywhere in scripture. We are going to trust the word, and you are going to trust the Pope. Good luck, I hope you acumulate enough righteouness for heaven. Dont worry, you only have to be perfect. I. Sure you’ll get there. Nothing is changed, your stby youI Catholic, and we arent. K
KEVIN says: “Nothing is changed, your stby youI Catholic, and we arent.”
Sure, whatever you say, Kevin.
Dasvidanya, don’t get any on ya.
Lol
Bob, Ck, Jim, There is a 20 minute youtube video by a young Lutheran Pastor named Jonathan Fisk addressing an email from a Lutheran thinking about converting to Rome. Everyone should here that short presentation. Its the best I have heard. Maybe tim can provide it, since I’m technically challenged. Its flat out awesome.
The video can be found on Triablogue.
2 Corinthians 5:21 ” For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin , so that we might become the righteouness of God. ” Oh sweet exchange! That He might hide the sin of the many in one man, that we might become the righteouness of God, in Him. I pray this day that Catholics might repent from trusting themselves and the Pope, from trusting Mary and saints, and from the idolatry of the Roman Eucharist, to put their faith in the finished work of Christ whose righteouness is the only that can save you. Happy Thanksgiving.
Tim, have you seen the new national Catholic Christmas TV commercial? It just played on the Thanksgiving day parade. It has a manger with all the pertinent characters, it has a real baby in the manger, and at the end with the camera focused on baby Jesus, it says ” and the Catholic church is calling everyone home to Mass.” They’ll be marching the Jesus wafer around in the strret soon here Tim. Wait. K
“But beware of supposing this to be plain ointment. For as the Bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is mere bread no longer , but the Body of Christ, so also this holy ointment is no more simple ointment, nor (so to say) common, after invocation, but it is Christ’s gift of grace, and, by the advent of the Holy Ghost, is made fit to impart His Divine Nature. Which ointment is symbolically applied to your forehead and your other senses ; and while your body is anointed with the visible ointment, your soul is sanctified by the Holy and life-giving Spirit.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 21, chapter 3)
“It is mere bread no longer” tells me the bread is something else besides bread. Same way with the ointment, “it is no more simple ointment” tells me it isn’t ointment anymore but something else. After the invocation, the mere bread and the common ointment cease to exist. That’s what “no longer” means.
Again, Cyril’s logic is sound. Your senses tell you it’s bread and ointment, but what your soul is in fact experiencing is the Body of Christ and the grace and sanctification through the Holy Spirit under the appearances (figures, symbols) of bread and ointment.
Thanks, Bob,
There is no teaching in Roman Catholicism that after the invocation, the accidence of oil remains, but the substance changes. There is no teaching in Roman Catholicism that the accidence of meat sacrificed to idols remains, but the substance of the meat turns into the “real presence” of Satan. And yet that is what you must suppose in order to get Cyril to agree with modern Rome. Cyril says the oil is no mere oil, but oil (it remains oil in substance) set apart for sacred use; he says the meat sacrificed to idols is no mere meat, but meat (it remains meat in substance) set apart for profane use. And he says the bread of the Eucharist is changed in the same way as these—it remains bread, but becomes bread set apart for sacred use, but is nonetheless bread in substance.
I may not be understanding you when you say “In the same way that Christ is being ingested in the Eucharist, it follows that Satan is ingested in meat sacrificed to idols.” I don’t think Roman Catholics will agree with you except possibly to rescue Cyril. If Satan is “really present” in meat sacrificed to idols (which is impossible), and he is “really ingested” when sacrificed meat is eaten (also impossible), then I am pretty sure that you do not understand Transubstantiation and Real Presence the way Roman Catholicism is using it. In what way is the pagan priest gifted with the power to transubstantiate the meat? What if 30 pagan priests pray an invocation over the meat simultaneously in 30 different locations. Is Satan “really” present in each sacrifice? According to Rome, that power to transubstantiate is based on God’s creative power, which exists in Him alone, and in the priests upon whom He is alleged to confer it. Quoting Ambrose, the Catechism says,
What Rome ascribes to her priests alone “in the person of Christ” and based on God’s creative power alone, you are alleging is in the power of all men by words of invocation. Such is the trap that awaits those who try to fit the Early Church Fathers into modern Rome, or to fit modern Rome into the Early Church Fathers. Do you really believe the pagan priest has the power to make Satan present, and the power to “change existing things into what they were not before”—a power that Rome reserves for God alone?
Much simpler—theologically and hermeneutically—to understand Cyril to say that oil, meat and bread are all set apart for their respective uses by the words of invocation—be they good or bad—than to try to get “real presence” out of Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures.
Thanks,
Tim
BOB – if you are interest in a book that groups the teachings of the early church fathers check out Jimmy Akin’s The Fathers Knows Best. It gives the fathers teachings on Mary and the Saints, Eucharist, Sacraments, etc.. 400 pages of invaluable teachings from the fathers themselves.
Bob, idols die hard with idolators. The gift of the Holy mother, the Jesus wafer. Bob, its mere bread no longer because of FAITH, not because Jesus leaves heaven, jumps in the wafer and dies again. Revelations 1: 17 says He was dead and now He lives forevermore. Augustine said Jesus is in thd believers heart thru the Spirit, not in the bread. ” Understand spiritually what I tell you, you are not to eat c this body which you see.” Your fixated on the real presence and sacrifice because your working your wat to heaven. Just like the woman at the well before she was saved, just like those who walked away in John 6, those who understood physically was unbelief. The trough of the Mass in no faith. The bread is bread no longer because of faith, notvbecause it is bread no longer. Without faith, the spirit and the Word its just bread. Pope Gelasius said tthe bread and the wine remain. You are an idolator. God bless
Kevin said – Bob, its mere bread no longer because of FAITH, not because Jesus leaves heaven, jumps in the wafer and dies again.
Me – if you want to be taken seriously you should at least present what Catholics believe honestly. But as your comment proves, honesty is not one of your virtues. You have no shame.
CK, Tim just showed you in his lat post to you in Cyril that you have no understanding of what your church teaches on transubstantiation. And with all due respect your nor in a position to tell me I dont represent Catholic teaching honestly. You tell, Tim and Walt tgey are wrong too. Who is the common denominator here. CK, have you ever read the canons of Trent? If you had you would that when the Priest says Hocus Pocus,in the words of Obrien ,he pulls Christ down from heaven and sacrifices Him in an unbloody sacrifice for sins. The wafer becomes substantially the body, blood, and divinity of Christ. Now where have I misrepresented Catholic teaching? Trent anathamatizes anyone who says it isnt a true and proper sacrifice. Now here is my question. Why would God trick the senses of man who smells, tastes, sees, feels bread? He wouldnt. Rome is wrong. If you will take the time to read Tim’s articles, and one fold blog ” evidence against the real presence in the Early Fathers, you will see that they didnt teach nor believe in transubstantiation nor a sacrifice of Christ again. CK, dont tell me its a representation, as wrong as that is, Trent says its a reaIsacrifice for sins. Wycliffe said the Mass was the height of unbelief. You just dont want to give up your idols to come in simple faith. Turtullian was clear, to worship an image of God is idolatry.
Kevin said this about Catholic belief about the Eucharist – Bob, its mere bread no longer because of FAITH, not because Jesus leaves heaven, jumps in the wafer and dies again.
Me – I accused you of misrepresenting catholic teaching. Please post official church documents that teaches Jesus leaves heaven, jumps in the wafer and dies again and I will apologize. You see, you need to lie to try to disprove catholic doctrines which only gives me greater security that the doctrines are sound.
CK, I have no interest in doing your research for you. Pull up Bishop Obrien’s comments on the Mass. He says at the the Priest’ command he pulls down Christ from heaven as his regent, and makes Him presnt on the altar , where Christ body is re broken for the sins of thepeople. The fact that you dont know that the Mass is true and real sacrifice, as Bryan Cross admitted knowing Trent’s doctrine, is telling. Next time your Priest wants to talk about re presentation, ask him what the word sacificium means. He’ ll change his tune. You said I live to disprove the sacrifice of the Mass and thats gives you greater security tha the doctrines are true. You are mistaken. I live to tell people the sacrifice of the Mass will damn their soul. Im Paul Revere thats it. And if you think that I believe the reason you love your idolatry and mystycism is because of my position on the Mass is funny. You love your idols, mystycism, the special gift of the Holy mother because it defines you and makes you feel important. “Full communion” But like my wife reminded me the other day, the gospel comes from outside us, its about God’ glory. She said the Roman Catholic gospel isnt about simple faith and possesing all we need thru it, its about one’s works, one’s merits, one’s place on the devout saint ladder. Its about them and their church. But like Walt once said Christ and his church was never about the biggest. Jesus confronted the religious of his day all decked in their robes and titles in arogant piety, and he said they were a brood of vipers. You are defined by your church CK. It wont save you. When you are willing to let Him off the cross and be Lord and savior, and when you are able to trust in the finished work of Christ, then your sins can be forgiven once and for all. But, it doesnt have anything to do with me and my positions, it will be of God. His elect hear his voice. God bless you.
Kevi,
I am breaking a record on Beggars All. The thread I am dominating just won’t die.
I am kick arse on Peter as first Pope and how impossible Sola Scriptura is.
I cannot believe you have not crashed in with you stupidities.
I have a sneaky feeling you have been banned. There has to be a reason why I have had the blog under my control for a month now.
I am highly suspicious. There is something fishy about you not posting on Swan’s site.
Jim, you are a legend in your own mind.lol Hope you had a great thanksgiving in Portugal. How many turkeys did you have. Did your turkey get cooked like it does here. Lol Hope you and your wife are doing well. Jim, I can shoot your whle Peter was the first Pope theory. He called himself a fellow elder, but hey dont let scripture get in the way of your dreams. I always love how RC’s like you and CKBob always put down sola scriptura. I mean all we are saying is when God speaks in His word it is infallible. You obviously dont agree, I mean look what you did to it, right. Read Catholic doctrine, believe the opposite, arrive at biblical truth. And nobody has done a better job of exposing it than Tim. K
CK,
Kevin said,
” Wycliffe said the Mass was the height of unbelief. ”
WOW! That settles it. It must be true. Wycliffe said it. Let’s sign up as Protestants. Why didn’t anyone tell us this before?
WOW! Wycliffe. How col, eh?
Kevin doesn’t get it. Wycliffe has zero authority with Catholics.
I’s as stupid as us saying to Kelvin,” The Pope said the Mass is a true sacrifice”.
Jim said ” Kevin doent get it . Wyclife has zero authority with Catholics.” Jim, if the scripture has zero authority with Catholics, why would I think Wyclife would have. You follow the guy with the big hat, we get it. You dont need to know scripture to do that. Just have some magic water sprinkled on you.
CK, Bob, Augustine ” Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and the blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by THE true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ , this sacrifice is COMMEMORATED in the sacrament.” Pope Gelasius ” ” Yet the SUBSTANCE of the bread and wine does not cease” Like Tim said, the early church didn’t get the dilatory of medieval (modern) Rome. Oh those mischievous medieval idolatrous schoolmen of Rome will have allot of splaining to do. Hebrews 6:6 ” and then have fallen away, it is IMPOSSIBLE to renew them again to repentance, since THEY CRUCIFY TO THEMSELVES THE SON OF GOD and put Him to open shame.” Think hard about what it means to continue to crucify the Lord to yourselves and put Him to shame. Christ is no longer on the cross, He is risen, glorified, high above the heavens, declared Son of God with power. He will no longer obey the words of any man to come down and be re crucified. He died once for sins. All who participate in a Mass have no excuse, the scripture is perspicuous. He died once and it was perfect putting sin away. Those who re crucify Him again to themselves put Him to open shame. Catholics I beseech you to listen to Augustine and Pope Gelasius, and most of all to the infallible Word of God. Let Him off the cross in your life and trust in the finished work alone for your salvation. Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving. K
Kevin! Picking a sentence here and there doesn’t prove jack. We call you on it but you continue to do it. It’s dumb. People do the same to prove Jesus is not God, disprove the Trinity, Faith alone. Heck, some people use it to prove bible alone!!!! Can you believe that???
Meant to say “prove faith alone”
CK, ” We call you on it all the time” How many of you are there? CKBobLynn etc. Lol Have a great day. Oh and incidentally you are right to criticize Christians who know see their utter sinfulness and trust in the Word and hiscfinished work alone, why cant they be good like devout Catholics who have the gift of the Holy mother in them and room in their heart for many things to worship. Shame on us that we have no room in our heart foranyone but God because we are hanging onto Him eternal life. Until one sees their utter sinfulness can one be thankful for the God who justifies the ungodly by faith alone in Christ alone. K
Kevin – how about that official catholic teaching I asked you about. That’s what I thought. You change the subject. Continue to lie that’s how you roll.
Btw, this the first time I’ve heard you call me Lynn. I’m actually BOB, Debbie and Jim. Why would I need to use several alias on the Internet I’m not sure but hey whatever makes you feel better. If you really want to feel better I suggest you get on some medication.
TIM–
You said: “What Rome ascribes to her priests alone “in the person of Christ” and based on God’s creative power alone, you are alleging is in the power of all men by words of invocation. Such is the trap that awaits those who try to fit the Early Church Fathers into modern Rome, or to fit modern Rome into the Early Church Fathers. Do you really believe the pagan priest has the power to make Satan present, and the power to “change existing things into what they were not before”—a power that Rome reserves for God alone?”
Pagan priests do not have that power. There is only one God with the power to do that, and it is not Satan. The satanic power of meat sacrificed to idols is counterfeit. It’s bogus. It’s non existent. There is no power there at all. Only God can give sanctifying power to bread and oil. That’s the whole point.
Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
Bob,
I am still missing your point. You said,
But now you are saying that “The satanic power of meat sacrificed to idols is counterfeit. It’s bogus. It’s non existent.”
Then in what way is “Satan ingested in meat sacrificed to idols?” I am trying to understand what you meant by that. You continued,
Then what did Cyril mean when he said “after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ, so in like manner such meats belonging to the pomp of Satan, though in their own nature simple, become profane by the invocation of the evil spirit.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 19.7)
It seems to me that “the whole point” of Cyril’s lecture here is that the Bread of thanksgiving shares something in common with the meat sacrificed to idols, and that one thing they hold in common is that they become something different at the invocation. If you read Transubstantiation into Cyril where he speaks of bread, then Cyril’s paragraph means that the meat gets transubstantiated into Satan, as you yourself have alleged. But if you read Cyril in his own context, it is clear that the meat becomes profane meat and the bread becomes holy bread. The meat does not turn into Satan and the bread does not turn into Jesus. The way you have reinterpreted Cyril makes him say that the thing the bread and the meat have in common is that one changes and the other does not. Yet in his context, he plainly says they both change.
You continued,
You are quite right. And just as the meat sacrificed to idols remains meat but nonetheless becomes profane, the bread of thanksgiving remains bread but nonetheless becomes holy. At least that is what Cyril is saying here.
What exactly did you mean by “Satan is ingested in meat sacrificed to idols”?
Thanks,
Tim
That was Cyril’s logic. If Jesus is ingested then Satan is ingested. But Christians know that Satan is not God and cannot be ingested in the elements. So the meat only becomes profane in the sense that it retains evil by association. Paul says there is nothing wrong with the meat, but we should still refrain from eating it lest we should cause someone weaker in the faith to fall from it.
Tim said – But you are quite right. And just as the meat sacrificed to idols remains meat but nonetheless becomes profane, the bread of thanksgiving remains bread but nonetheless becomes holy. At least that is what Cyril is saying here.
Me – Cyril actually said ” beware of supposing this to be plain ointment. For as the Bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is mere bread no longer , but the Body of Christ..”
He said it BECOMES the body of Christ which happens to be holy.
Kevin,
You post all the time on Green Bigots but you won’t let me show you off on Beggars All. I want them to see a real bigot. Ah, C’mon, Kev. A couple of the Protestants ( Steve and PBJ ) really hate Catholics like you do. Come on over and help them out.
NOT FAIR THAT GB GETS TO HAVE YOU ALL TO THEMSELVES.
On the thread about prayers on Mary is where you can find me. ( SHHHH! Just don’t tell ’em my name is really Jim ).