207 thoughts on “Their Praise was their Sacrifice (part 6)”

1. In light of this series we can only imagine how God must feel about the profanation of the Lord’s supper done by the Roman Mass. Profanely changing God’s instituted sacrament into a re breaking of our Lord’s body for sins is the height of blasphemy. Tim you have gone to great deatail to show how the early fatgers went to great lengths to maintain their categories so that acceptable sacrifices of praise and tganksgiving were offered from the altar of the heart, for we are the temple of Christ. God will judge those who walk to that Roman altar of idolatry and profane sacrifice. Thanks Tim. K

   Reply

2. Tim,

   Have you ever documented the Baptists claims from the early church that they did not perform infant baptism, and have an unbroken line in history from the Apostles?

   See quotes below:

   “We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men.

   —Charles H. Spurgeon

   Christian history, in the First Century, was strictly and properly Baptist history, although the word “Baptist,” as a distinctive appellation was not then known. How could it be? How was it possible to call any Christians Baptist Christians, when all were Baptists?”

   —William Cathcart, The Baptist Encyclopedia, 1881, p. 286.

   The American Baptists deny that they owe their origin to Roger Williams. The English Baptists will not grant that John Smyth or Thomas Helwysse was their founder. The Welsh Baptists strenuously contend that they received their creed in the first century, from those who obtained it, direct, from the apostles themselves. The Dutch Baptists trace their spiritual pedigree up to the same source. German Baptists maintained that they were older than the reformation, older than the corrupt hierarchy which it sought to reform. The Waldensian Baptists boasted an ancestry far older than Waldo, older than the most ancient of their predecessors in the Vales of Piedmont. All these maintain that it ultimately reappears, and reveals their source in Christ and His apostles.”

   —(pp. 34-35 – The Testimony of the Baptists, by Curtis A. Pugh quoting William Cathcart, The Baptist Encyclopedia, 1881, pp. 620-621.)

   http://www.reformedreader.org/history/list.htm

   Reply

   1. Hi, Walt,

      No, I haven’t documented that. But certainly something worth looking into, I agree.

      Thanks,

      Tim

      Reply

3. Not just Holy Scripture but Early Church History too clearly substantiates the above claims. The Early Church Fathers opposed communism,9 revolutionism,10 soul-sleep,11 and pseudo-pentecostalistic babblings12 etc. Here, however, we now focus our attention specifically on antipaidobaptistic deviations from Biblical baptism.

   There are few post-biblical extant records about baptism at all, until Cyprian in 250 A.D. Yet, many pre-250 works do yield fragmentary traces of either sprinkling or infant baptism or both — but none of antipaidobaptism.

   Such pre-250 works include:13 the Tanna; the Talmud; the Old Testament Apocrypha, and the Pseudepigrapha. They include the writings also of: Philo; Josephus; Clement of Rome; the Didachee; (Pseudo-)Barnabas; Ignatius; Pliny; Aristides; Matheetees (to Diognetus); Papias; the Shepherd of Hermas; the New Testament Apocrypha; Justin Martyr; Polycarp; the mid-century martyrs around 150 A.D.; Athenagoras; Theodotus; Irenaeus; Polycrates; Clement of Alexandria; Tertullian; the Old Egyptian Ordinance; Hippolytus; Origen; Dionysius of Alexandria; and archaeological evidence.

   Even the Baptist A.W. Argyle — Regent’s Park College tutor at Oxford — has made some important concessions. He conceded14 that there indeed “appears to be [at least] one cryptic reference to infant baptism in an allegorical passage of the Paedagogus” written by the 195f A.D. Clement of Alexandria.

   Indeed, Baptist Argyle has further conceded that the 230 A.D. Origen describes “the practice of infant baptism not only as a custom of the church, but as an apostolic custom.” Nay more! Argyle also conceded the indisputable fact that (the 250f A.D.) “Cyprian Bishop of Carthage…directs that infants should be baptized.”

   Yet sadly, we also find in Cyprian the evidence that submersionistic paganism was just then beginning to infiltrate the Christian Church. Until that time, ever since the apostles, baptisms of believers and their children had been administered in the Universal Church by way of sprinkling.

   Only heretics had previously rejected infant baptism, and had begun to insist on neo-paganistic submersionism. The Church, however, sprinkled believers’ babies. See Francis Nigel Lee’s three theses Baptism Does Not Cleanse and Rebaptism Impossible and Baby Belief Before Baptism.15

   From the 250 A.D. time of Cyprian onward, however, the Church Universal degenerated — by syncretizing with paganism. More and more water now got used at baptisms. This was because of the false and new theory that the greater the quantity of water at baptisms (and the more naked the candidate), the greater the quantity and quality of sins were thereby washed away. Enter baptismal regenerationism.16 So, too, from 350, baptism was often deferred till death.

   Fortunately, however, there was no attack against infant baptism as such. For even the romanizing Church Universal rightly regarded babies too as sinners — all stained with Adam’s original sin. Thus, paidobaptism was clearly enunciated by: Lactantius; Asterius; Basil; Gregory of Nazianze; Gregory of Nyssa; Hilary; Ambrose; Chrysostom; Jerome; and Augustine. Yet Biblical sprinkling decreased, and magical submersion increased.

   In the Middle Ages, the neo-paganistic doctrines of the inherent goodness of babies and the denial of their original sin (in certain circles) — sometimes expressed itself in a rejection of infant baptism. This was found in various heretical sects outside the Church Universal.

   Thus the wildcat adoptionistic Paulicians now arose in Armenia at the end of the seventh, and increased especially in the ninth century. Drawing from Marcionism and Manichaeism, most of the Paulicians rejected the Christian sacraments altogether.17

   http://www.semperreformanda.com/men-of-god/francis-nigel-lee/francis-nigel-lee-index/the-anabaptists-and-their-stepchildren-f-n-lee/

   Reply

4. Last time I checked Jesus was taken into the Jordan and baptized. The word Baptizo means immerse. Its not an easy subject. I see both sides. Circumcision isnt excatly like baptism. Girls werent circimcised. Paidocommunion was tried in the church for awhile and then rejected. The fact is Jesus baptism was in the Jordan river and adult baptism was the majority practice in the early church. I can see both sides, I go back and forth. But to say submersion is pagan would mean Jesus had a pagan baptism in the Jordan. Who wants to say that. K

   Reply

5. Tim, I wanted to provide a book here for my dear brothers and sisters in Christ if anyone is interested. The Baptism of disciples alone: A Covenental argument for Credobaptism versus Paedobaptism. By Fred Malone. He was a Reformed Paedopbatist. It deals with Jeremiah 31 and its tie to baptism. Thanks K

   Reply

6. According to some in the “reformed” camp, this new book is suppose to be the best the modern believer baptist has out in the market place:

   “Longtime readers of the blog may recall a previous post entitled The Three Best Books in Defense of Believer’s Baptism. Well, now The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism by Jeffrey D. Johnson will top that list. In fact, together with Fred Malone’s book The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus Paedobaptism, I am not sure a Reformed Baptist needs another work in his library on this subject.”

   http://reformedbaptist.blogspot.com/2010/05/fatal-flaw-of-theology-behind-infant.html

   Reply

7. Only the AnaBaptists teach baptism means submersion.

   Baptism by immersion is understood by some to imply submersion of the whole body beneath the surface of the water.[9][10][11][12][13][14]

   Others speak of baptismal immersion as either complete or partial,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] and do not find it tautologous to describe a particular form of immersion baptism as “full” [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] or “total”.[33][34][35][36][37][38][39]

   Still others use the term “immersion baptism” to mean a merely partial immersion by dipping the head in the water or by pouring water over the head of a person standing in a baptismal pool,[40][41][42][43] and use instead for baptism that involves total immersion of the body beneath the water the term “submersion baptism”.[41][42][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_baptism

   Reply

8. http://theblog.founders.org/the-difference-between-the-true-christian-and-the-hypocrite/

   How can you tell whether you’re a genuine believer or a false professor? One of the best books describing the true nature of conversion is The Christian’s Great Interest by William Guthrie.

   The great Puritan theologian, John Owen, highly commended it and wrote, “The author [of The Christian’s Great Interest] I take to have been one of the greatest divines that ever wrote; it is my Vade-mecum [that is, “handbook”], and I carry it and the Sedan New Testament, still about with me. I have written several folios, but there is more divinity in it than in them all.”

   Consider what William Guthrie says in chapter 5 of his book about the differences between the true Christian and the hypocrite. Here are some ways in which the hypocrite may be like the Christian.

   1. A hypocrite may be influenced by the gospel in every part of himself. He may come to great knowledge of God’s truth (Heb 6:4). His emotions about Christ may be high (Matt 13:20). He may even experience drastic changes in the outward man, like the Pharisee who prayed, “God I thank You that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, etc.” (Lk 18:11-12).

   2. A hypocrite may look to others like he’s a true believer. He might talk of the law and the gospel (Ps 50:16), openly confess his sin to his own shame (1 Sam 26:21), and humble himself in sackcloth (1 Kgs 21:27). He may even carefully consider what duties he needs to perform and seek after them (Is 58:2), persevere even in hard times, give his possessions away to God and the saints, or even give his body away to be burned (1 Cor 13:3).

   3. A hypocrite may advance far in God’s ordinary graces. He may come under great convictions of sin, just as Judas did (Matt 27:3-5). He may tremble at the word of God, just as Felix did (Acts 24:25), rejoice in receiving the truth (Matt 13:20), and have many experiences of tasting the good graces of God (Heb 6:4).

   4. A hypocrite may have some characteristics very similar to the saving graces of the Holy Spirit. He may have a kind of faith, like Simon Magus who “believed also” (Acts 8:13) but then proved to be a false believer. He may have a kind of legal and outward repentance that looks very much like true repentance (Mal 3:14). He may have a great and powerful fear of God, like Balaam did (Num 22:18). He may experience a kind of hope (Job 8:13). The hypocrite may even have some love, as Herod had of John (Mk 6:26).

   5. A hypocrite can even have great and powerful experiences of God. He may have “tasted of the heavenly gift” and become “partakers of the Holy Spirit” and experienced the “powers of the age to come” and yet not be genuinely converted.

   So, what are the marks of a true believer? How is genuine conversion to be distinguished from false conversion? Guthrie provides five marks of a true believer that are not possessed by the hypocrite.

   1. A true believer’s heart is changed forever. In Jeremiah 32:39 the Lord says, “I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me forever.” Hypocrites never have a changed nature. Hypocrites want Christ for the good that He might do them in the world. But a true believer’s heart loves Christ as the all satisfying treasure of this life and the next.

   2. A true believer’s changed life comes from a heart of love to Christ. Hypocrites can clean up their outward behavior to be seen by men, to ease their troubled consciences, or to keep themselves from the consequences of their sins. But true believers love Christ and keep His commandments for His sake, to serve Him, to know Him, and to bring glory to His name (Ps 119:6).

   3. A true believer seeks Christ and His kingdom above all else. This is the one thing necessary: Christ’s friendship and fellowship. But that is never the “one thing” and heart-satisfying choice of the hypocrites. True believers, on the other hand, desire that this “better part would never be taken from them” (Lk 10:42).

   4. A true believer submits to the righteousness of God. He abandons all hope in himself and his own righteousness, and rests wholly in the righteousness of Christ for his acceptance before God. A true believer rests in Christ and Him only as his Savior. Hypocrites don’t do this (Rom 10:3). They depend, in some degree, upon their own righteousness.

   5. A true believer has the three great essentials of genuine Christianity. First, he is broken in heart and emptied of his own righteousness so as to loath himself (Lk 19:10). Second, he takes up Christ Jesus as the only treasure and jewel that can enrich and satisfy (Matt 13:44). Third, he sincerely closes with Christ’s whole yoke without exception, judging all His ‘will just and good, holy and spiritual’ (Rom 7:12). A hypocrite does none of these things.

   Reply

9. KEVIN–
   You said: “We dont do it to merit our salvation. Christ did that alone and its offered by faith alone. Clement of Rome, if you read the quote I provided said we can look to no works wrought in holiness, wisdom, piety, nothing from ourselves to be justified before God. Here is what Paul said in Romans 8, ” it is God who justifies” Who can bring a charge against God’s elect.” Nobody can. And the he says this ” who FREELY gave us all things. Salvation isnt free in Roman Catholicism.”

   KEVIN!! You continue to put up this strawman so that you can feel good about knocking it down.
   Question:
   Why does the Roman Catholic Church teach the doctrine of “works righteousness,” that through good works one can earn salvation?
   Answer:
   The Catholic Church has never taught such a doctrine and, in fact, has constantly condemned the notion that men can earn or merit salvation. Catholic soteriology (salvation theology) is rooted in apostolic Tradition and Scripture and says that it is only by God’s grace–completely unmerited by works–that one is saved.
   The Church teaches that it’s God’s grace from beginning to end which justifies, sanctifies, and saves us. As Paul explains in Philippians 2:13, “God is the one, who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work.”
   Notice that Paul’s words presuppose that the faithful Christian is not just desiring to be righteous, but is actively working toward it. This is the second half of the justification equation, and Protestants either miss or ignore it.
   James 2:17 reminds us that “faith of itself, if it does not have work, is dead.” In verse 24 James says, “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” And later: “For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead” (2:26).
   The Council of Trent harmonizes the necessity of grace and works: “If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or by the teaching of the Law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema” (Session 6; can. 1).
   The Council fathers continued by saying, “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema” (Session 6: can. 9).
   So, far from teaching a doctrine of “works righteousness” (that would be Pelagianism, which was condemned at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 418), the Catholic Church teaches the true, biblical doctrine of justification.

   And as far as cooperation with God and meriting increase, here is what Paul has to say about it. 1Co 3:6 ff “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building.

   God’s fellow workers. The word here is:
   συνεργός synergos
   sün-er-go’s : adjective
   I. companion in work, fellow worker
   In a nutshell, that’s cooperation.

   You have been shown. So stop using it as an excuse. If you continue to do so, all of us will know it.

   Reply

   1. Bob, how does Session 6 Cannon 9 reconcile with these 2 verses ?” For by grace you have been saved through faith, it is NOT that of yourselves, it is a GIFT of God, NOT a result of works.” Romans 11: 6 ” if its by grace, it is NO longer on the basis of works, or grace is NO longer grace.” Sorry Charlie, Cannon 9 can’t be reconciled with scripture. What a surprise something in Romanism that can’t be reconciled with scripture. Romans 4:16 ” For this reason it is by faith, in order that it might be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be GUARANTEED to all those of the law, and to those who ware of the faith of Abraham. Sorry Bob, if a Roman Catholic wants to be saved by grace alone it will have to be by faith alone. K

      Reply

   2. Bob, Sorry grace enabled works won’t cut it in justification either. Titus 3:5 ” He saved us, not on the basis of deeds done in righteousness, but according to His mercy. Clement said not by works wrought in holiness of heart. Think about it Bob, ” not of yourselves” rules out all Trent canons. Trent was taken so off guard by the Reformation, they rushed to Trent and anathematized the gospel. They legitimatized the semi pealgianism that was infesting in the RC. The medieval church was steeped in this, mysticism, idolatry. The Reformation returned us to the true gospel of the early church. K

      Reply

      1. Like I said, all of us will know it. You’re just talking in circles.

         Reply

   3. Bob said ” As far as cooperation with God in meriting increase. here is what Paul has to say about it 1 corinthians 3:6″ Wow, now that is some” justification” there. Its all God, Bob, with Rome. Boy, why didn’t you tell us before and we could have saved men from dying in the Reformation. Nobody should have objected to Rome because Bob says Trent is saying the same thing as Paul. Your blinded by love and worship for a church that you have been told is infallible. Let me give you some of Trent’s its all God. ” converted to their own justification” ” To the one who works well to the end” ” not only as a gift, but as a reward to THEIR merits and good deeds.” ‘ who truly merits eternal life” ” that nothing else is REQUIRED to co-operate in order to OBTAIN the grace of justification” ” ” that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his OWN will” ” if anyone say that the justice received is no preserved and increased before God by WORKS” ” but those works are fruits and signs and not a cause of increase thereof” If anyone say that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary unto salvation” ” In Roman Catholicism, God can be appeased by our sufferings, by penalties imposed by a Priest and by afflictions imposed by God. These are said to atone for sins. This is the antithesis of Christianity. No Bob, its not all of God in roman Catholicism. God helps you to save yourself. You just don’t dee it. K

      Reply

   4. Bob said we are God’s fellow workers. Romans 4:5 God justtifies the one who does not work. Reconcile them?

      Reply

   5. Bob,

      Sorry for intruding but it needs to be said that this Scripture is not speaking about working with God toward our salvation, but of bringing in God’s harvest through the Gospel of Jesus Christ:

      1 Co 3:6 ff “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building.”

      Synergism – all of us co-workers with God – is used here about doing the work of the Gospel. It has nothing to do with salvation, for listen to what Isaiah declared. If I use this verse wrongly, forgive me, but I believe it shows that God does His work alone.

      Isaiah 63:5
      And I looked, and there was none to help;
      and I wondered that there was none to uphold:
      therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me;
      and my fury, it upheld me.

      Everything that man does is corrupt, and so how could corruption be added to the work that brings eternal life – which is holy and pure, and God’s own life in us? And didn’t Jesus answer this about what we are to do, to do the works of God?

      John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

      Faith alone is the work God would have us do, then being born from above we bring forth fruit to His glory, to please Him and help others.

      Maria

      Reply

      1. Yes indeed Maria. ! The work of God isbto believe. Jeremiah 23 ” And His name shall be called the Lord is our righteouness.”

         Reply

         1. Yes, this is His Name!

            Reply

            1. Get thee to a nunnery!

10. TIM–
    “Therefore, upon the altar of God, which is truly very great, and which is placed in the heart of man, and cannot be defiled with blood, there is placed righteousness, patience, faith, innocence, chastity, and abstinence.”
    This comes right out of the Liturgy of the Eucharist:
    “Lift up Your Hearts.”
    “We lift them up to the Lord.”
    “Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.”
    “It is right to give Him thanks and Praise.”

    Reply

    1. Yes, Bob, this comes right out of the liturgy:

       “Therefore, upon the altar of God, which is truly very great, and which is placed in the heart of man, and cannot be defiled with blood, there is placed righteousness, patience, faith, innocence, chastity, and abstinence.”

       As does this:

       “The Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, when she offers what comes forth from his creation with thanksgiving.”

       Nobody was denying that Roman Catholicism, or anyone else, quotes the Early Church Fathers in the liturgy. What I have asserted here is that Rome takes Irenæus out of context by quoting him in the liturgy. When he says, “The Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, when she offers what comes forth from his creation with thanksgiving,” he is referring to the sacrifice of praise that is offered before the Lord’s Supper begins. But Rome cites him to say that the Lord’s Supper is the “pure oblation of the New Covenant.”

       You may recall my article, Novel Antiquity. In that article I cited a Roman Catholic apologists (Mark Shea) who said that Protestants cannot handle enfleshments of grace, and we can only handle “spiritual,” which is to say “disembodied” expressions of the grace of God:

       “Many tend to speak as though the grace of God now only reaches us in “spiritual” (read: “disembodied”) ways. Enfleshing that grace in people today is too much, too close.”

       Which brings us back to your citation:

       “Therefore, upon the altar of God, which is truly very great, and which is placed in the heart of man, and cannot be defiled with blood, there is placed righteousness, patience, faith, innocence, chastity, and abstinence.”

       The citation is from Lacatantius, Divine Institutes, Book VI, Chapter 24. But in the next chapter he writes,

       “Now let us speak briefly concerning sacrifice itself. “Ivory,” says Plato, “is not a pure offering to God.” What then? Are embroidered and costly textures? Nay, rather nothing is a pure offering to God which can be corrupted or taken away secretly. But as he saw this, that nothing which was taken from a dead body ought to be offered to a living being, why did he not see that a corporeal offering ought not to be presented to an incorporeal being? … Therefore, in each case, that which is incorporeal must be offered to God, for He accepts this. His offering is innocency of soul; His sacrifice praise and a hymn. For if God is not seen, He ought therefore to be worshipped with things which are not seen.” (Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book VI, Chapter 25

       How do you rationalize your use of Lactantius’ rejection of offering visible, corporeal sacrifices to God, in order to justify a liturgy that offers visible corporeal sacrifices to God?

       As I have pointed out elsewhere, that is a gross decontextualization of Lactantius.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

11. KEVIN and MARIA–

    Did neither one of you read this part:
    “And as far as cooperation with God and meriting increase, here is what Paul has to say about it.”? Where in that sentence does it say anything about initial salvation?
    What Trent is saying is that for one to have saving faith, he must assent to Christ’s perfect gift to us by full consent of the will, acting with a contrite heart in repenting of our sinful ways, and confessing that He is our Lord and Savior. Those are actions that complete our faith.
    “Synergism – all of us co-workers with God – is used here about doing the work of the Gospel. ”
    Exactly! That is the merit which God gives us as we practice our faith. His increase is our growing in intensity like a kindling fire of the Holy Spirit that will soon become a conflagration in our souls IF we don’t quench it by complacency.

    Reply

    1. Bob, that is not what Maria is saying when she says ” is used here about doing the work of the Gospel” Maria can clarify, but I understood her to say the section you used about one waters etc, is saying the work of spreading or sharing the gospel with others. Maria made the proper point that this scripture isnt talking about how a man is justified before God where Paul allows no coperation. And again its dificult with you and CK, because you pull scripture out of context, as Catholics often do. Reformed go to the books and chapters that talk about salvation and justification to make those determinations. Again Maria can clarify. You said ” this is the merit God gives us as we practice our faith.” Bob, the RC system of workingvfor merits isnt the gospel. Salvation is a free gift, you cant earn it, and you dont deserve it. It is received by faith from beginning to end. As I have said if God gave grace as a result of and action or ability it wouldnt be a gift. K

       Reply

       1. KEVIN–

          Again “And as far as cooperation with God and meriting increase, here is what Paul has to say about it.”? Where in that sentence does it say anything about initial salvation?

          Reply

          1. Bob, Im not sure I understand what your asking. In Roman Catholicism one doesnt merit his initiation into grace but he merits his continuance in it. This is a violation of the gospel since no work can justify anyone. Not even grace enabled works. Nothing coming from ourselves. Paul doesnt qualify works, he eliminates all doing, being, loving in justification. Nothing wrought in us can justify us. Our justification comes from outside us, it is Christ. And faith is the instrument that apprehends Christ our righteouness and brings him to the heart. That is why faith alone justifies, because it alone can receice our righteouness. Notice Paul in Philipians 3:9 puts all his righteouness in one column and Christ’s in another. He wants to be found in the righteouness that comes by faith from God.

             Reply

    2. Bob,

       There is so much I could tell you but I won’t. First I have to admit that I was wrong to address you when I did. I hadn’t read the post yet, or kept up with the comment threads. Yours simply jumped out at me because you constantly defend the Church of Rome. I would only say this, in answering your response to me, that studying about Trent and its declarations, and being raised and educated as a Catholic who has actual experience of this Church, are very different. You may even know Catholics well, but you haven’t been one.

       Complacency. I hope that is not true of me – though it has been in the past! Don’t let it be true of you in regard to Rome.

       Maria

       Reply

12. TIM–
    You quoted: “Therefore, in each case, that which is incorporeal must be offered to God, for He accepts this. His offering is innocency of soul; His sacrifice praise and a hymn. For if God is not seen, He ought therefore to be worshipped with things which are not seen.” (Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book VI, Chapter 25

    And then you said: “How do you rationalize your use of Lactantius’ rejection of offering visible, corporeal sacrifices to God, in order to justify a liturgy that offers visible corporeal sacrifices to God?”

    Let me be Mr. Obvious here. What is offered to God is invisible–our offering is innocency of soul; sacrifice praise and a hymn–what is in our hearts. We also ask Him to bless the fruit of our labors–alms and tithes and bread and wine for the good of all His Holy Church. That is our completed oblation. What God gives us in return is visible and invisible. We eat the consecrated bread and drink the consecrated wine visibly, and we eat Christ’s Body and Drink His Blood invisibly.

    I think what you are doing, Tim, is concentrating on just one small part of the sacrament, when the sacrament should be taken as a whole–the Liturgy of the Eucharist. It encompasses
    more than just an offering. It builds the offering, it makes the offering, and it “feeds” us in Body and Spirit with that offering.

    You ask: “How do you rationalize your use of Lactantius’ rejection of offering visible, corporeal sacrifices to God, in order to justify a liturgy that offers visible corporeal sacrifices to God?”

    Aren’t tithes and alms considered visible/corporeal? After all, it was you who said:
    “Caring for the poor through the collection of tithes is a sacrifice of praise to God, an offering, a way of expressing “thanksgivings unto God,” an “odour of a sweet smell” to Him. In other words, it is incense and an oblation of praise to God, a well pleasing sacrifice in accordance with Malachi 1:11. ”
    –THEIR PRAISE WAS THEIR SACRIFICE (PART 4)

    Reply

    1. Thanks, Bob,

       You wrote,

       “Let me be Mr. Obvious here. What is offered to God is invisible–our offering is innocency of soul; sacrifice praise and a hymn–what is in our hearts. … I think what you are doing, Tim, is concentrating on just one small part of the sacrament, when the sacrament should be taken as a whole–the Liturgy of the Eucharist. It encompasses more than just an offering.”

       Well, thank you, Bob. Of course that’s what I’m doing. That’s what The Sacrifice Challenge entails. That’s what I said was doing since the first week.

       The Douay Catechism claimed:

       “Christ Jesus is a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech (Heb. v. 8,) and so he instituted, according to his order; that is to say, in bread and wine, this great sacrifice of the NEW LAW. All the Holy Popes, and Fathers, and Councils of the primitive ages, teach that the mass is the self same sacrifice of bread and wine that had been instituted by our Saviour;”

       And this blog says that Malachi 1:11 is a food offering:

       “Malachi 1:11 is fulfilled in the Sacrifice of the Mass. It is an unbloody food offering.”

       And what we know from the Catechism (1357) is that it is an offering of consecrated, transubstantiated food:

       “…bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have become the body and blood of Christ.”

       So yes, I am “concentrating on just one small part of the sacrament” because that one small part of the Sacrament is claimed as an ancient and historic and apostolic institution, and yet it cannot be found in the Early Church Fathers. You continued,

       “Aren’t tithes and alms considered visible/corporeal?”

       Yes, they are. As I noted in the introduction,

       “The words “Offer,” “celebration,” “sacrifice,” “oblation,” “gifts,” and “eucharist” are all used in close proximity to the Lord’s Supper, but they do not all mean the same thing, nor do they all refer to the bread and wine. Nor do all Church Fathers use each term in the same way. One says the oblation of the New Covenant is praise because there are no more sacrifices. Another says the sacrifice of the New Covenant is praise, because there are no more oblations. Yet another says that praise is our sacrifice, but that the oblation of the New Covenant is the collection of tithes and gifts and first fruits for the poor. Yet another says sacrifices, offerings and oblations were all done away with, and now there is only prayer. Yet another offers an oblation of gratitude for the bread and wine, then invokes the Holy Spirit that He might exhibit to the people, rather than offer to the Father, Christ’s sacrifice by the symbols for which gratitude has been expressed. Usage varies from Church Father to Church Father; one Church Father may vary his usage from writing to writing, and even from paragraph to paragraph. Context, of course, is necessary in order to understand what the writer was saying, and what he meant by what he said.”

       The only question before us is, in fact, this “one small part of the sacrament”: were the consecrated elements of the Lord’s Supper the sacrifice of the New Covenant according to the Early Church, as claimed by those who have issued The Sacrifice Challenge?

       What I have noted above is that Rome cites Irenæaus to prove the sacrifice of consecrated elements, but Irenæaus has the pure oblation finished before the elements are consecrated and the Holy Spirit is invoked, and therefore cannot have been referring to the sacrifice of transubstantiated bread and wine. What I have noted in your citation from Lactantius is that the “offering of the heart” is in reference to invisible, immaterial, unembodied, incorporeal sacrifices, but Rome uses that citation from Lactantius to support a visible, material, corporeal, embodied sacrifice of the Mass.

       My goal was not to compare Irenæaus with Lactantius, but to rebut Rome’s claim that they both agreed with her Mass Sacrifice. They clearly did not. So when you say, “I think what you are doing, Tim, is concentrating on just one small part of the sacrament,” well, that’s Obvious. That’s what I am doing, and that is what I have been claiming to do all along.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. TIM–
          “Tim is concentrating on just one small part of the sacrament,” well, that’s Obvious. That’s what I am doing, and that is what I have been claiming to do all along.”

          Why can’t you just disprove transubstantiation? That would seem to be a quicker solution. Trying to disprove the Real Presence has two many variables to disprove. By what I have read in the Fathers, they obviously believed in the Real Presence in some form. They may have disagreed on little nuances here and there, but they agree that the bread and wine do not remain ordinary bread and wine.

          Reply

          1. Bob,

             “Why can’t you just disprove transubstantiation?”

             Because The Sacrifice Challenge is not The Transubstantiation Challenge.

             Thanks,

             Tim

             Reply

    2. Bob,

       The way you describe the Lord’s Supper is quite interesting because it is at strong variance with the Roman Catholic view that you are occasionally defending. You wrote,

       “What is offered to God is invisible–our offering is innocency of soul; sacrifice praise and a hymn–what is in our hearts.”

       What the Catechism says is:

       “…[he wanted] to leave his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice…” (1366).

       Is the offering visible or invisible? Is the offering what is invisible in the altar of our hearts, or is it what is visible on the altar at the front of the church?

       I don’t know if you are defending Rome, or if you are expressing your own beliefs, but when you say what is offered is invisible, but what He gives us to eat is visible in one way and invisible in another, you put yourself under Rome’s anathema:

       “Canon I. If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat: let him be anathema.”

       “Canon III. If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities: let him be anathema.”

       Did you mean to say, rather, “What is offered to God is our invisible praise along with Christ’s Body and Blood under the visible elements, invisibly present in those forms”? Or were you saying that what is offered at the Lord’s Supper is our invisible praise, but what is consumed at the Lord’s Supper is visible bread and wine, which are invisibly His Body and Blood?

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

13. Tim,
    You really need to get over on Beggars All. I have already “broken their teeth and shut up their mouths on the papacy and am now working them through Mary in the Fathers.
    They have all stopped opposing me and seem to have high tailed it off the blog. It’s no fum talking to myself.

    It’s nice. Because Kevin is not there, one can actually have a step by step argument without the millions of rabbit trails.

    Reply

    1. It’s no fun.
       Fum is what I do here.

       Reply

    2. Jim, your a legend in your own mind. Lol k

       Reply

14. By the way Tim,
    How does your theory of Baptism and the Fathers stack up with Bill Webster’s views?
    I thought he was your mentor.

    Reply

    1. By the way, I read on a blog that Richard Bennett died, I suspect they were talking about Bart Brewer. But that was years ago. Also, did Anthony Pezzotta get back in the Church? I heard on a talk show that he did.

       One more thing; I read that Webster had a falling out with his church and so went and started his own. Googling around I see he started a church in 2002, 13 years ago. Has he since started yet another church?

       Reply

    2. Jim, You wrote,

       “I thought he was your mentor.”

       Do you have any basis for this thought? He has never been my mentor.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

15. Bob and CK, ” this is the merit God gives as we practice our faith” I couldnt get this Catholic quote out of my mind. The scripture says out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Please listen to Paul as he speaks Romans 3 : 23,24 ” for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by His grace as a GIFT, thru the redemption that is in Christ. Bob and Ck, Paul is very clear hear justification is a free gift, and it comes in the complete redemption of our sins in Christ. From beggining to end we are justified as a gift. Now Bob look at your statement in light of what Paul said. ” this is the merit God gives as we practice our faith” You do and Godvgives you merit. Conditional. And yet Paul says its freely given as a gift. This was the reason for the Reformation. Rome changed the gospel. K

    Reply

16. This series has offered further proof that the continued sacrifice of bread and wine in the Mass for sins which has no support in the early church can save noone. It is fitting that it is the source and summit of salvation in a false Christianity. Of course if we apply my rule to read Catholic doctrine, believe the opposite and arrive at biblical truth, then biblical truth would say salvation come by faith alone in Christ alone and in the one sacrifice on the cross. And to give thanks and praise in memory of His sacrifice as He nourishes our faith thru that memorial and proclamtion of the Lord’s death until he returns to Sup with us. This is faith, without which it is impossible to please Him. The Spirit gives life, the flesh profits nothing. K

    Reply

    1. I have a rule too. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

       Reply

17. KEVIN–
    You said: “Bob and CK, ” this is the merit God gives as we practice our faith” I couldnt get this Catholic quote out of my mind.”

    What part of “God Gives” do you not understand? Merit is a gift. We ask, and God gives. How do you expect God to say to you “Well done, good and faithful servant” if you don’t serve Him?
    1John 3:22 And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight.
    Jesus also said:
    Mat 7:7 ff “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!
    Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

    These are instructions from the Word of God. We are called to do these things whether you be Catholic, Orthodox, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc, etc. We were taught this from when we were children–Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It is the Golden Rule.

    Again, Kevin, this is not “works righteousness”, so quit using it as an excuse.

    Reply

    1. Tim said to Bob ” the way you describe the Lord’s supper is quite interesting because it is a strong variance with the Roman Catholic view” This is not only shows up in the misrepresentation of the RC doctrine on the supper, Bob and CK also misrepresents the RC doctrine on justification, while accusing us misrepresenting the Catholic views. But we have heard the term “love is blind.” Their worship of the Roman church does not allow them to see the falsity of their system. For example bob said ” this is the merit God gives as we practice our faith” to which I said God doesn’t give merit as we practice our faith, salvation is a gift involving no merits for practice at all. I cited Romans 3:24 that said we are justified as a gift by his grace. And I cited Romans 8 where Paul says He has given us all things freely. So Bob tries the Roman pay as you go system as a free gift. But we will continue to remind Bob there was a Reformation over this issue. ” Let human merits, which perished by Adam, here be silent, and let the grace of God reign thru Jesus Christ.” The worth of the act is not do to an action of the person who performs it” Augustine and Calvin respectively. So now that we put Bob’s statement ” this is the MERIT God gives as we PRACTICE our faith” in perspective, we would ask Bob to not misrepresent this as God’s demerited gift of grace. Roman Catholicism is not a free gift, you have to really, really work hard for the merit to earn the increase of grace. We leave you with Paul’s words ” not that of yourselves” ” not of works” K

       Reply

    2. Bob said, we are called to do these things whether Baptist, Methodist etc. Yes, but we aren’t justified by them and thats what the Roman Synagog teaches. You can deny it all you want, Rome teaches you are justified by your cooperation with God, faith plus works, and this is a false gospel that will damn the souls of men. We are justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us by faith alone with no reference to anything we do. It is a gift of his grace. Romans 5:17 Paul calls it the ” free gift of righteousness” You can’t earn it. It doesn’t increase and decrease. And one never, ever loses it. And when some system teaches you can lose it then it isn’t Christ alone, its Christ plus you. Works can only be result of faith not the condition of justification. Love is the fulfillment of the Law, but we aren’t justified by love. And as Luther said Rome robs from faith and gives to love what god only intended for faith. hope this helps. K

       Reply

       1. Whatever.

          Reply

          1. Talking to you is like Abbot talking to Costello in “Who’s on First”.

             Reply

             1. Bob, thanks for your responses. It always fascinates me when I read comments by those like Jonathan Prejan telling Robert that spewing venom and anti Catholic bigotry is no longer accepted in academia, and they will get nowhere in the academic world unless they submit to the new ecumenical spirit. Then he continues that in modern theological circles Catholics are no longer considered anything but part of the church etc. And he considers the Sprouls and MacArthurs, Hortons as prehistoric hacks etc. Its all hogwash. The theologians 500 years ago understood it better than we ever will. C..S. Lewis said if you have a choice berween an old boo and a new one, choose the old one. As good as a jazz musician as I am, I will never do it as good as Dizzy Gillespie who was living it at the time. We should never forget the great things that came out of the Reformation. And the Reformers werent plaing nice with the Papacy. They were convinced Rome had changed the gospel. And we here on this site are no less convinced. Some 35 year old self proclaimed theological intelect telling me its al different today because of modern study has no idea what they are talking about. Either Rome is right or its wrong when put to the light of scripture. And its wrong. 500 years hasnt changed that. K

             2. BOB,

                The problem is that Kevin does not believe we have free will. He is elect and as such is forced to cooperate with God’s grace. On the flip side there are those who God actively keeps them from responding to His grace. There can’t be real participation. We are all puppets.

                Second, every verse must be filtered through his interpretation of Paul. It’s like Paul’s writings were inpired by the Holy Spirit on steroids. It trumps the regular Holy Spirit.
                So I will quote Paul..

                Paul tells us in Philippians 2:13 “God is the one, who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work.” God gives us the desire to be righteous and the desire to work towards it. It’s all God, but we must bend our will to do it. Synergy.

             3. Interesting comment, CK:

                “Second, every verse must be filtered through his interpretation of Paul. It’s like Paul’s writings were inpired by the Holy Spirit on steroids. It trumps the regular Holy Spirit.
                So I will quote Paul.”

                Doesn’t every verse have to be filtered through your interpretation of something? I mean, you accept Rome’s judgment on the Canon in 382 A.D., but reject Carthage’s judgment on regeneration by laying on of hands in 258 A.D.. If neither council was infallible, how do you decide? You run that through a filter, too, don’t you? What filter do you use?

                Would you agree that Augustine thought that John 6 is to be taken figuratively, since that is what he said about John 6?

                “…it is figurative. ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.’ [John 6:53] … it is therefore a figure…” (Augustine, Christian Doctrine, Book III, chapter 16)

                But you don’t believe Jesus’ language in John 6 was figurative, do you? And you don’t believe that Augustine really believed it was figurative, do you?

                What filter do you use to determine that? Is it the same filter you use to determine which papal statements are infallible? How do you know? What is your filter? It’s like the Popes were inspired by the Holy Spirit on steroids. They trump the Scriptures. So which Papal statements do you use as your filter? And which ecumenical councils? And which regional ones?

                Or does it all really boil down to what you personally believe to be true? Is that your filter?

                Thanks,

                Tim

18. TIM–
    You quoted: “What the Catechism says is:

    “…[he wanted] to leave his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice…” (1366).

    Is the offering visible or invisible? Is the offering what is invisible in the altar of our hearts, or is it what is visible on the altar at the front of the church?

    And you also quoted “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” (Romans 12:1)

    You tell me. Are we visible or invisible? Do our living bodies include our visible carnal flesh and our invisible spirit and soul?
    Or when we lift up our hearts, do we lift up only our praise and thanksgiving? Or do we lift up our spiritual selves with our carnal heart? You tell me.
    It is obvious to me that nobody is placed on the altar physically like the ancient Aztecs. There are no animals killed and chopped up and blood sprinkled. What are you talking about and what is Paul talking about as far as “our bodies as a living sacrifice”?

    Reply

    1. Bob,

       As I said in the introduction, every Church Father does not speak of Malachi 1:11 in the same way. One says all sacrifices cease, and prayer is accepted instead. Another says the New Sacrifice is prayer and the New Oblation is the tithe for the poor. Another says we offer an oblation because there are no more sacrifices. Another says we offer the fruit of the lips, another the fruit of our labors, another the fruit of a pure mind. So what do we offer? Oblations? Sacrifices? Prayers? Praise? Thoughts? Mind? I stated up front that the Fathers spoke in different ways about this, and what you are asking is why one father says it was invisible, and another says we offer something that the eyes can see. The answer is the same—because every Church Father does not speak of Malachi 1:11 in the same way

       You asked,

       “What are you talking about and what is Paul talking about as far as “our bodies as a living sacrifice”?

       At this point it is irrelevant what I or Paul are talking about in Romans 12:1, because only one single question is in view: The Sacrifice Challenge—what did the Early Church Fathers think Malachi 1:11 was? What matters is what the Early Church Fathers thought Romans 12:1, Hebrews 13:15, Philippians 4:16-18 and Psalms 51:17 meant. One father says Malachi 1:11 refers to a “living sacrifice” per Romans 12:1. Another says it is caring for the poor per Philippians 4:16-18. Another says it is praise, per Hebrews 13:15. Another says it is a contrite spirit, per Psalms 51:17. One says it is invisible and incorporeal, and another says it is caring for the poor and worshiping with uplifted hands, and yet another says it is the mind, pure thoughts and good works. There is no consensus from the Early Church on what Malachi 1:11 means except at the barest level there is an emergent consensus that it refers to simple prayer from a pure conscience, which alone is sufficient to rebut the Douay Catechism which claimed that “All the Holy Popes, and Fathers, and Councils of the primitive ages, teach” that it refers to Rome’s Mass Sacrifice. That statement from the Douay Catechism is plainly and voluminously and abundantly falsifiable, as the evidence from the Early Church piles up, even if the Early Church did not converge unanimously on a single verse to explain what Malachi 1:11 was.

       But there is something that the Early Church agreed that it was not: a prophecy of the Sacrifice of the Mass. It did not even enter their minds until the end of the 4th Century to start thinking in terms of Sacrificing Christ at the Lord’s Table as a fulfillment of Malachi 1:11. That is because Roman Catholicism as a religion did not emerge until then. And when it did, it received its authority from the serpent (Revelation 13:2) and began to corrupt people’s minds “from the simplicity that is in Christ,” “as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty” (2 Corinthians 11:3), and was so subtle that he just about pulled it off—which is What the Fathers Feared Most.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. TIM–
          Ok. I think I am finally getting to what you are saying.
          Rome says that the Fathers are in unison in picturing Malachi 1:11 as a prophecy of the portion of the Liturgy of the Eucharist considered to be the actual transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine. You are saying that the Fathers are too mixed up on what Malachi means that they couldn’t be in unison at all on what the sacrifice is, much less on it being a picture of the transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine.
          If that is the case, then I can see what you are doing. You are not questioning the entire Liturgy, just a small portion of it that the Roman Church defines as no other church does. Got it.

          Carry on, soldier, and good luck! If you could prove transubstantiation cannot exist beyond the shadow of a doubt, the whole Roman thing would crumble.

          Reply

          1. Bob,

             Not “mixed up”. Diverse in their thinking, but not “mixed up.” In the end, they all agreed that it was praise of some sort, not an offering of the body and blood of Christ.

             You continued,

             “If that is the case, then I can see what you are doing. You are not questioning the entire Liturgy, just a small portion of it that the Roman Church defines as no other church does.”

             Yes, you might even say that I am responding to The Sacrifice Challenge.

             You continued,

             “If you could prove transubstantiation cannot exist beyond the shadow of a doubt, the whole Roman thing would crumble.”

             The converse will do nicely, as well. If you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that “the whole Roman thing” is the prophesied Antichrist, then the whole transubstantiation thing will crumble as well. The Antichrist has an accomplice, the False Prophet, who sets up an Image of the Beast, and the image comes to life and speaks (Revelation 13:14-15). Transubstantiation is Rome’s explanation why the image comes to life and speaks to its adorers. If Rome is Antichrist, then the Eucharist is its image, and if the Eucharist is its Image, transubstantiation “is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders” (2 Thessalonians 2:9) by which he “deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles” (Revelation 13:14).

             You said,

             “Carry on, soldier, and good luck!”

             There will be no luck, but there will be a lot of carrying on. I am under no delusion that what I am saying will be believed or accepted by anyone. Nevertheless, I hope the information I provide will be an encouragement to the saints. Perhaps one day you will be encouraged by these words as well. I have no power, or ambition, to change your mind.

             Best regards,

             Tim

             Reply

       2. The serpent? Too funny. Couldn’t one also argue the serpent was influencing all those during the reformation that pushed bible alone? That school of thought brought about a disunity that will continue to grow. God wants us to be one. Bible alone works against this.

          The funny thing is Luther, Calvin did not believe in bible alone if one came up with a different interpretation than them. Heck didn’t Calvin write several books telling everyone how the bible alone should be intrepeted?

          The whole concept is a joke because there is no such thing as bible alone.

          Reply

          1. CK wrote:
             The funny thing is Luther, Calvin did not believe in bible alone if one came up with a different interpretation than them….The whole concept is a joke because there is no such thing as bible alone.

             Response:
             WCF:
             The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

             Luther and Calvin ? Not the infallible rule of interpretation. We, the true Bible believers, rest in the Word and not in our understanding. God judges in the end. Read your Bible and pray. After that, read your Bible and pray. Ask God to give light to your heart and mind. You must rest in Him and his Word. Judgement is coming and He will hold you accountable for not approaching Him in His Word.

             Reply

             1. You are right they were not but they behaved like they were. They did not believe in the bible alone. Calvin may have said to look elsewhere, but the answer had to be agreeable to him.

                Eric it’s you and the bible. Solo Scriptura.

             2. Erick W. said to CK: “Read your Bible and pray. After that, read your Bible and pray. Ask God to give light to your heart and mind. You must rest in Him and his Word.”

                Interesting. That is what Jason Stellman did and he became Catholic. Go figger.

             3. CK wrote:
                Eric it’s you and the bible. Solo Scriptura.

                Now retract what you wrote:
                The whole concept is a joke because there is no such thing as bible alone.

             4. BOB, you wrote:
                Interesting. That is what Jason Stellman did and he became Catholic. Go figger.

                Response:
                Objectively speaking, there’s nothing in the doctrine of SS, nor the attempt to live under it, that necessitates certain outcome(s) we surmise. The doctrine, nay the Bible itself, is correlative with this truth:

                WCF:
                …..Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word…..
                ———————
                Jason is not proof. It is impossible to act under the Bible alone and be led to something denying the Bible alone. That’s some kind of logical rape. The Bible didn’t lead him to the RCC.

                Jason admits to placing ideas into the authors of the Bible. He was trying to “get into” their paradigm heads. I’m not quoting him, so don’t get excited if the words lack exactitude.

             5. BOB,
                PS…Jason didn’t obey God and resist the Devil. The Bible promises that the Devil will run away.

                Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. – James 4:7

          2. CK, you asked,

             “Couldn’t one also argue the serpent was influencing all those during the reformation that pushed bible alone?”

             Yes, one certainly could argue that. One could argue a lot of things. However, eschatologically that argument does not work. The Four Empires (Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, Roman (Daniel 2 & 7)), each fall in succession and yield to the next empire—each empire being a manifestation of the latent evil in men that arises and naturally persecutes the people of God. It is a succession of empires. The Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Greek, the Roman, and then… the Roman Catholic. Roman Catholicism is the Fifth Empire. The sign that the antichrist had come was 13 horns arising out of the Roman Empire, of which Antichrist would subdue three. Antichrist subdued three of those, and grew up among remaining 10 (Daniel 7), and dominated them all for a time. That antagonist of Daniel 7 is the antagonist of Revelation 13, and the antagonist of Revelation 13 gets its authority from the serpent, and Rome is that antagonist. The transition from Rome to Roman Catholicism occurred at the latter part of the 4th century, which is why that is where I have set up camp.

             The Reformation was 1200 years too late to qualify, eschatologically speaking.

             CK, you are a follower of Antichrist, and you are a worshiper of the Image of the Beast. That must (and indeed does) sound comical to your ears, which is of necessity. You cannot know otherwise. Followers of Antichrist don’t know they’re following Antichrist, for “God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” (2 Thessalonians 2:11). If they knew they were following Antichrist, they would not be deluded.

             Perhaps it will please the Lord to open your eyes.

             To you, this must seem to be improv night at the Comedy Barn, and I’m the headliner. That’s ok. I knew going in that I would be the object of scorn and ridicule. One does not undertake such things lightly without counting the cost.

             All laughers are welcome here. I hope you stay.

             Thanks,

             Tim

             Reply

             1. Tim said – Followers of Antichrist don’t know they’re following Antichrist, for “God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” (2 Thessalonians 2:11). If they knew they were following Antichrist, they would not be deluded.

                Me – So if one knows they are following the Antichrist that means they are not? So Tim do you think you are following the Antichrist? Seems to me you better not say no because in your world a no means yes.

             2. The Roman Empire, made of clay and iron split when Constantine divided the Empire.
                The New Kingdom, will last forever.

19. WALT–
    I know exactly what you mean when you say Catholics leave here frustrated. I don’t blame them a bit.

    Reply

20. CK–
    You said: “every verse must be filtered through Kevin’s interpretation of Paul. It’s like Paul’s writings were inpired by the Holy Spirit on steroids. It trumps the regular Holy Spirit.
    So I will quote Paul.

    Paul tells us in Philippians 2:13 “God is the one, who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work.” God gives us the desire to be righteous and the desire to work towards it. It’s all God, but we must bend our will to do it. Synergy.”

    Amen, CK. You’re preachin’ to the choir.

    Reply

    1. Bob said to CK ” your preaching to the choir” IOW your preaching to yourself. And thats a fact. God bless.

       Reply

       1. KEVIN said: “Bob said to CK ” your preaching to the choir” IOW your preaching to yourself. And thats a fact. God bless.”

          Really? I didn’t know CK was in the choir. Cool.

          Reply

    2. ” Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God that we might understand the things FREELY given us by God. Notice 2 things here, we have the Spirit who helps us understand all thing pertaining to life and Godliness. The Spirit is the vicar of God on earth, not some sinner in a big hat full of diamonds. Christ left us with the third member of the Trinity, God the Spirit to care for his people. To hell with your Roman Catholicism and its sacramental efficacy put up in the place of the atonement. God bless. K

       Reply

21. CK, said ” God gives us the desire to be righteous and the desire to works toward it.” Work towards what? Justification. Its a gift that has been obtained by Christ, and given thru faith alone. He lived the law in our place and fulfilled all righteousness and EARNED for us eternal life. Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees you can’t enter. We work our salvation out with fear and trembling for it is God who is at work in us. And where we fall short we are covered by the righteousness of Christ that already justified us past tense. We aren’t justified by our own righteousness, or love, or any doing. CK how do you react when you read a bishop of ROME tell you we aren’t justified by ourselves or wisdom or understanding or piety or works wrought in holiness of heart, but by fail according to His will. Did you even read it? It would make me stop and say Clement a BISHOP OF ROME teaches not what my church teaches. Listen to yourself ” its all God, BUT we must bend our will to do it.” Ya right, typical Roman slight of hand. Its agree gift BUT you got to really really work hard for it. I have a copy of 30 quotes that say the same thing as Clement from the Fathers. We are not justified by God’s work in us, we are justified by Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. He simply doesn’t count our sin against us and declares us just. Christ is our substitute. 2 Corinthians 5:21 ” He made Him who knew no sin to be sin that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” It doesn’t say we become righteous but ” the righteousness of God” IN HIM. God bless K

    Reply

22. I just told you towards what. What do YOU think Paul is talking about in that verse.? I’m going to the bible and you keep quoting Popes. You thinking about swimming the Tiber? I’ll be your sponsor 🙂

    Reply

    1. Have I ever denied that God gives us the desire to live righteously. I said we arent justified by our righteous living, but by the righteousness of Christ who is our righteouness. Certainly we are fitted for holy living. But this sanctification will never be the ground for our acceptance before God. Why? Because it is always imperfect. How can Paul say HAVING BEEN justified by faith if its based on our imperfect sanctification. The perfect requirements of the law had to be fulfilled for God to declare us just. The medieval church wrongly interpreted this righteouness to be accmulated inhherently thru doing sacraments. We are bad, real bad. He was good. He was perfect. He was born under the law to redeem those under the law. He was the second Adam. And He providedvfor us justification and gave it freely as a gift to those who simply trust Him alone. K

       Reply

       1. Kevin love fulfills the law.

          (Rom 13:8ff, Gal 5:14): “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not covet,’ and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”

          Reply

23. CK–
    Talking to Kevin is like….
    

    Reply

    1. You are spot on!

       Reply

24. I just ordered five copies of this book. I suggest others do to.

    In a few weeks Naphtali Press will, Lord willing, go to press with this classic Puritan work which has never been reprinted since 1606. Bownd’s work more than any other one thing in the late Elizabethan / early Jacobean period in England, set the mold for the Puritan understanding of the fourth commandment regarding the Lord’s Day or Christian Sabbath. It was the first scholarly and lengthy book on the subject, can be considered the grandfather of all subsequent works, and its influence cannot be overestimated in helping to shape and establish the Puritan Sabbatarian theology subsequently and classically expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. We will go to print once the pre orders are substantial enough to justify a formal print run; but I trust that will not be in doubt for such an important work as this one. So pre order now; cajole, arm twist, tell your friends. I’m of the opinion this is the most important book produced by Naphtali Press in thirty years and may not be surpassed even if it continues for another thirty. Below are some kind commendations from those who have reviewed the draft and details, followed by some extracts from the front matter. Chris Coldwell, Naphtali Press
    Commendations by Mark Jones, James T. Dennison and Richard B. Gaffin.
    “After four centuries of rest, Nicholas Bownd’s famous book on the Sabbath has re-Bownded. Attractively printed, this work is a critical edition of the 1595 version and the expanded 1606 edition. Coldwell has painstakingly collated and meticulously annotated the two so as to allow Bownd’s classic Puritan doctrine of the Lord’s day Sabbath to be published afresh. Lovers of the Scriptures as interpreted by the Westminster Standards will rejoice. May all glory redound to the Eschatological Lord of Sabbath rest, as it did four centuries ago.”
    –James T. Dennison, Jr., author of The Market Day of the Soul: The Puritan Doctrine of the Sabbath in England, 1532-1700; and Academic Dean and Professor of Church History and Biblical Theology, Northwest Theological Seminary, Lynnwood, Washington.
    “Those with an interest in developments leading up to the formulation of the Sabbath doctrine taught in the Westminster standards will benefit from this careful documentation and analysis of the views of Nicholas Bownd.”
    –Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., author of Calvin and the Sabbath; Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology, Emeritus, Westminster Theological Seminary.
    Nicholas Bownd’s work, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath, occupies a hugely significant place among Puritan works on polemical and practical divinity. For its scope, detail, and erudition, this work on the Sabbath is unparalleled in the Puritan tradition—indeed, perhaps even in the Christian tradition. Particularly illuminating are Bownd’s “spiritual exercises,” which clearly had an influence upon the later Puritan attitudes regarding the practical implications of Sabbath-keeping and worship. As an added bonus to the content of this book, the editorial work on this book is first-class, and makes for far more enjoyable and easier reading than a simple re-print.
    –Rev. Dr. Mark Jones, Minister at Faith Vancouver Presbyterian Church (PCA).

    From the Foreword
    With all the Puritan and Presbyterian books expounding upon the fourth commandment which have been published or reprinted in the last four hundred years, it may be reasonably questioned why it is important to bring yet another work on the nature of the Lord’s Day into print again, particularly when few Christians today either believe, understand or appreciate the true doctrine of the Christian Sabbath. The answer is simple enough. Nicholas Bownd’s books were the first scholarly, lengthy treatment articulating the Puritan Sabbatarian position, and he can fairly be said to have set the mold for the standard argument. The basic tenets he defended are enshrined in that last great set of Reformed symbols, the Westminster Standards. So while he certainly did not invent the doctrine, Bownd can in a sense be called the father of the later Puritan works expounding the fourth commandment. Consequently, his work is of significant historical importance and a new edition is at the very least warranted to aid the study of it. And personally, if for no other reason, I believe a good modern edition of this great work is appropriate out of simple gratitude for the author’s labors in the face of the difficulties of the times and the rather singular persecution he faced.

    This project to bring Nicholas Bownd’s True Doctrine of the Sabbath to print in a modern version dates back over twenty years. The source was a poor University Microfilms, Inc. (UMI) photocopy of an equally poor microfilmed example of Bownd’s 1606 revised edition. This required considerable proof reading, and the original having all the problems of a late sixteenth century text made for a tedious job of editing. It was easier to keep shifting focus to other less difficult projects. However, as it turned out in the providence of God, the project needed this delay in order for new research to come to light, revealing more than had previously been in print about Nicholas Bownd. In addition, the editor’s “tool kit” required expanding in order to handle such an old text with the attending necessary research, which other projects afforded over the intervening years. Finally, when the push to get this project on a track to completion was undertaken in the last year or so, a final hurdle presented itself. The discovery of the letter Thomas Rogers wrote to Bownd in 1598 cast all in new light, requiring a late course change and a complete revision of the approach to the text of the book.

    For the last nineteen years the intent was to bring Bownd’s 1606 edition to print. However, it became clear that Bownd had made at least one revision based upon a criticism Rogers had made in a 1599 sermon against Sabbatarianism. Using phrases from the surviving notes of that sermon, a few quick searches revealed that while never naming him at any point, all of the main criticisms Rogers made were addressed in the revision. In addition, the description of the 1598 letter, which had never been transcribed, indicated it contained references to Bownd’s 1595 edition. So even before obtaining a copy and transcribing the letter, it was clear that the 1606 text had to be carefully collated with the 1595 edition in order to discover changes directly attributable to Rogers’ criticisms. With a revised critical text noting the additions (herein denoted by large {braces} in the text and in the margins), it became clear that many of the 1606 revisions were made in order to address criticisms made in both Rogers’ 1599 sermon and 1598 letter. This discovery led to a considerable investigation of the dispute between Bownd and Rogers (which is known as the first Sabbatarian controversy in English literature), which resulted in a lengthy but hopefully informative introduction to this volume, now finally completed after all these years.

    The text, keyed in the margins to the 1606 edition, has been revised, as far as possible without marring the author’s work, to reflect contemporary spelling, punctuation, and usage. Chapter divisions have been added. Words or insertions supplied by the editor are in [square brackets]. While a few less clear antiquated words or spellings are replaced with the modern equivalents after the first usage (e.g. “entreating [in treating]” etc.), generally changes to clearly archaic spellings are done “silently.” Scripture quotations are italicized, as well as Latin words and some emphasis. While the original use of italics for all manner of emphasis created many difficulties (see the Analysis), I have attempted to untangle and trace all of Bownd’s references. An annotated bibliography is provided noting the library collections available to Bownd, as well as author, subject and Scripture indices….

    Contents (there is also a lengthy table of chapters and subtopics in addition to bibliography, scripture, author and subject index).
    Contents of The True Doctrine of the Sabbath ix
    Introduction xix
    Results of the Elizabethan Settlement xxii
    The Bownds and Richard Greenham xxvii
    Richard Greenham xxix
    Nicholas Bownd xxxii
    The Ministry of Nicholas Bownd xxxiv
    The Market Day of the Soul xxxv
    The Works of Nicholas Bownd xxxvi
    Conformity and Presbyterianism xl
    Bownd’s Advocacy/Rejection of Presbyterianism xliv
    Thomas Rogers xlvii
    The Works of Thomas Rogers xlviii
    Thomas Rogers, Proponent of Conformity liii
    Thomas Rogers and the Bury Exercise lvii
    Thomas Rogers versus Nicholas Bownd lxi
    Assessing Rogers’ Claims, Whitgift’s and Popham’s Suppression lxvi
    Rogers’ 1598 Letter to Bownd lxix
    Time table of events lxxvii
    Objections to the Propagandist Theory lxxxi
    Nicholas Bownd Proves Rogers’ Letter is Genuine lxxxiv
    Conclusion lxxxv
    Analysis lxxxix
    Prefatory Epistles, 1595–1606
    Dedication (1595) 3
    To the Reader (1595) 4
    Book One (1606): Dedication 6
    To the Studious and Diligent Reader 9
    Commendation by Alexander Bownd 12
    Andrew Willet to the Reader 16
    Book Two (1606): Dedication 22
    William Jones to the Author 26
    Commendation by Walter Allen 32
    Book One: The Ancient Institution and Continuance of the Sabbath 35
    Book Two: The Sanctification of the Sabbath 285
    Bibliography 449
    Author Index 466
    Scripture Index 470
    Subject Index 474
    Commendations 482
    (Dj will reproduce photos of St. Andrews, Norton, Suffolk, where Bownd preached c.1583-1611. Courtesy of and (c) Dr. Andrew Mason.)

    Nicholas Bownd, Sabbathum Veteris Et Novi Testamenti: or, The True Doctrine of the Sabbath (Naphtali Press, forthcoming 2015) 592pp. Hard bound, smyth sewn, dust jacket. Lengthy introduction and analysis. Pre-publication offer: $24.95 postage paid USA only (if ordering multiples and to more than one address please specify in the instructions). https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=UYPXMBDCUKFBE

    Reply

    1. Greenbaggins has provided in its recent topic Dr Mark Jones article titled should christians watch the Supper Bowl. Its excellent whether one is a strict sabatarian or not. K

       Reply

    2. Walt, if you feel like it would you read MacArthur’s article at Gty.org ” Are the Sabatarian Laws binding on Christians today” and give me your feedback. One of his points is that Gentiles were never bound to sabatarian laws in the OT. Then he addresses some verses by Paul that he says indicate that the sabatary law were ceremonial and thus abrogated. K

       Reply

25. CK, Galatians says those under the Law are under a curse. And 3:10 says cursed is anyone who does not abide in ALL things of the Law. Men’s consciences are bound by the Law and they do it out of fear of condemnation. But Galatians says He became a curse for us and by His perfect obedience and death He freed us from the rigor of the Law and its hold on men’s conscience. Christ was born under the Law and redeemed those under Law by becoming a curse for us. ” cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree” We are no under law but under grace. Our minds are freed to obey God by loving our neighbor, but we are justified by faith in Christ. Romans 8:2 ” For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has SET YOU FREE from the law of sin and death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was thru the flesh, God did by sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so the THE RIGHTEOUS REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW might be fulfilled in us who walk according to the Spirit. 8:1 says there is NOW no condemnation for those in Christ. Romans 7:6 says ” we have been RELEASED from the Law.” Because we have been justified by faith alone in Christ alone and have been united with Him thru the Spirit we stand just before God, and yes we may love our neighbor, although we fall way short because sin dwells in us. Calvin told Cardinal Saldoletto its much easier to love your neighbor when you know you aren’t obligated to do so. We obey God and love our neighbor, not because we are justified by it, but because we have a free conscience before God, stand justified, and desire to obey Him. Hope this helps. Incidentally the verb in 8:4 says He fulfilled the RROTL “in us” not ” by us” the verb is passive. K

    Reply

    1. Does love fulfill the law or no? It sounds like it does. Do I need Calvins guide to interpreting the bible alone to really understand it?

       If we are released from the law why must we keep it perfectly?

       Reply

       1. Mathew 5: 17. You said ” if we are released from the Law, why do we have to keep it perfectly” because the law requires perfect obedience Galatians 3:10, James 2:10. For anyone trying to be justified by works, law, you must obey it perfectly. Thats why we believe in the gospel which has released us from the penalty of the law. Christ obeyed perfectly and thru this perfect obedience even to the point of death fulfilled the law Mat 5:17 and earned heaven for us and offers it as a free gift by faith. Our consciences are free because we have been justified by faith and his blood, 5:19 says thru His obedience we are righteous. Imputation. Hope this helps. K

          Reply

          1. It helps. Ok so we were not released from the law. We must keep law perfectly . Scripture tells us we can fulfill that perfection with love. Love fulfills the law. It’s right there in black and white. Why do keep ignoring it? What does that verse mean to you?

             Reply

             1. CK said to Tim ” I believe I found the church Christ founded and I submit to it” You were born into this church. You are like a cradle mormon. Its all you have ever known. Tim told you in a previous post you can believe no different because you under the delusion told in 2 Thesss 2. Thankk God He brought you here. You have and oppurtunity to leave the shrine of the devil’s firstborn if God should see fit. You said ” you submit yourself to your interpretation of the bible whinh was provided to you by the church I submit to. If you, after coming here so long, had read the articles, you would see clearly that your church is not the early church, and that bible comes from the mouth of God, not the Roman Catholic church. But you will find your church in scripture. 2 Thessalonians 2, Daniel 2, 7 and Revelations. K

             2. MacArthur said he heard a Priest say ” We are all on a long journey to perfection” Well if he is on a long journey to perfection, he is a man most to be pitied. In Roman Catholicism you can never know your saved, you can never know your going to heaven, the threat of a mortal sin throwing you out again. Without Purgatory Catholicism is a hard sell. You said what does Paul mean that love fulfills the love of God. It means the law is subsumed in the NT into two commandments, and fulfilled by love. Love is the full expression of the Law. But again you perform Eisegesis. We aren’t justified by the LAW. We are justified by faith. What does Galatians 3:12 ” However, THE LAW IS NOT FAITH, He who practices them shall live by them” CK I have watched for a long time. Your being justified by what you do, your love. And Paul is clear if you seek to be justified by law then you will live by them and be judged by it. And here is what Paul says to you ” Cursed is anyone who does not abide in ALL things written in the Law including love. And then he says this ” NO ONE will be justified by observing the law, no law. Have at it. You and the Priest on the treadmill to perfection. Hows that going? God bless K

       2. CK, I have explained this to you. I only pray that you will come out of the shrine of the devil’ firstborn. K

          Reply

26. Thank you, Tim! I found such joy reading the words of Lactantius.
    Maria

    Reply

    1. You are welcome, Maria! I hope you are feeling better.

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Yes! Thanks!

          Reply

27. Tim said – Interesting comment, CK:

    “Second, every verse must be filtered through his interpretation of Paul. It’s like Paul’s writings were inpired by the Holy Spirit on steroids. It trumps the regular Holy Spirit.
    So I will quote Paul.”

    Doesn’t every verse have to be filtered through your interpretation of something? I mean, you accept Rome’s judgment on the Canon in 382 A.D., but reject Carthage’s judgment on regeneration by laying on of hands in 258 A.D.. If neither council was infallible, how do you decide? You run that through a filter, too, don’t you? What filter do you use?

    Me – Yes it must be interpreted taking the whole bible, Tradition, and an Authority not just Paul. I admit it upfront you guys pretend you don’t.

    On your second point I go with the Catholic Church because She has the authority to settle and did settle disputes for hundred of years before.

    I don’t have time to research what happened with Carthage. But based on history it probably went like this… Bishops meet at Carthage and come up with new doctrine. They try to get the Pope to agree to it (why would they do this if Rome had no authority? For that matter why even discuss it with Rome? If the Lutherans decide to change some doctrine do you think they would consult Rome?). Pope says no, said bishops tell Pope to take a hike. Pope threatens excommunication. Bishops either said ok fine or they eventually changed their minds. If this happened in 258 AD it tells me that eventually they gave in to Rome’s authority in order to stay in union with the church Christ founded.

    Tim said – Would you agree that Augustine thought that John 6 is to be taken figuratively, since that is what he said about John 6?

    “…it is figurative. ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.’ [John 6:53] … it is therefore a figure…” (Augustine, Christian Doctrine, Book III, chapter 16)

    But you don’t believe Jesus’ language in John 6 was figurative, do you? And you don’t believe that Augustine really believed it was figurative, do you?

    What filter do you use to determine that? Is it the same filter you use to determine which papal statements are infallible? How do you know? What is your filter? It’s like the Popes were inspired by the Holy Spirit on steroids. They trump the Scriptures. So which Papal statements do you use as your filter? And which ecumenical councils? And which regional ones?

    Me – First it doesn’t matter to you what Augustine thought about the Eucharist. If you were convinced that he believed in the real presence you’d just say he was in error and move on.
    You say the belief in the real presence is a Roman novelty. Your theory is that the Roman Church (led by the Antichrist) came up with this novel idea of the real presence (a heresy) yet there is no written discourse between Christians at that time. No back and forth. No theological debates. You are the history buff, please point to something like the letter from “Augustine to Pelagius” where there is a clear stance against the real presence.

    Pope does not trump scripture. The when the Pope is exercising church dogma, so is the Holy Spirit. It can’t contradict Scripture or Sacred Tradition. I say it upfront. It’s clear as day. He sits at the Chair of Peter like the Pharisees that sat at the Chair of Moses.

    You and I have faith that God protected the inspired authors and I have faith that God protects his church. You have faith that the Catholic Church collected the right New Testament books and like a good Protestant you throw out the books you don’t like. I know I have all the inspired books because the Church told me so, Protestants removed 7 books because a man told them to. I’m upfront about my filters, you are not. Your filter is you and only you. You hid behind bible alone when it’s really you alone. You filter your traditions, your election, your verses. Your church is the church of you! There is no greater authority than you.

    Tim – Or does it all really boil down to what you personally believe to be true? Is that your filter?

    Me – I believe I found the Church Christ founded and I submit to it. You submit to your interpretation of the bible which was provided to you by the Church I submit to. The Church Christ founded.

    Tim – Thanks,

    Tim

    Me – you are welcome!

    Reply

    1. CK, you wrote,

       “I don’t have time to research what happened with Carthage. But based on history it probably went like this… Bishops meet at Carthage and come up with new doctrine. They try to get the Pope to agree to it (why would they do this if Rome had no authority? For that matter why even discuss it with Rome? If the Lutherans decide to change some doctrine do you think they would consult Rome?). Pope says no, said bishops tell Pope to take a hike. Pope threatens excommunication. Bishops either said ok fine or they eventually changed their minds. If this happened in 258 AD it tells me that eventually they gave in to Rome’s authority in order to stay in union with the church Christ founded.”

       You should probably find the time to research what happened at Carthage:

       “The Councils of Carthage were a series of councils held in north Africa in the city of Carthage by the Church of Africa during the third through fifth centuries. During these centuries the Church in Carthage rejected the claim of the Bishop of Rome to appellate jurisdiction. After the subjection, first, by the Vandals in the fifth century then followed by the Muslim Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries Church of the former Roman province of Africa was largely destroyed.”(Orthodox Wiki, Councils of Carthage)

       Not quite the “it probably went like this” history you imagined, was it? Rejecting papal appellate jurisdiction in the Early Church? I keep hearing from Roman Catholics that that didn’t happen back then because everyone realized that the Roman Bishop was the chief.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

28. CK wrote to Tim:
    Me – I believe I found the Church Christ founded and I submit to it. You submit to your interpretation of the bible which was provided to you by the Church I submit to. The Church Christ founded.

    Response:
    If found, then searched out. If searched out, then directed. If directed, then prompted. If all of these things mentioned, then some experience with it. If experience with it, then some knowledge of it.

    How did you know before you found the CC Christ founded ? You read the Bible and saw Church. You interpreted, or at least agreed with other interpretations, the Bible that mentioned Church.

    Conclusion: Your findings are firmly resting on CK interpretation of the Bible.

    After you turned to the CC interpretation, you kicked away the CK interpretation ladder.

    Reply

    1. I also looked at history. I can still have my own interpretation. The Church sets boundaries so believers don’t go off the deep end such as removing inspired books from the bible, believing God creates evil, predestines people to hell, Jesus is not God, once saved always saved except when they were never saved to begin with, and other such beliefs.

       You have your fence. Because you made yourself elect and judged yourself to heaven you have given yourself this false security that no matter what you do or believe you are going to heaven. I can picture you as an Israelite running around with the scrolls you deemed inpired giving everyone a hard time for listening to Moses. SOLO Eric. No higher authority than Eric. The sad part is you pretend otherwise.

       Reply

       1. CK said ” the RC sets boundries so people dont go off the deep end.” Hilarious! Oh ya, boundries assumption of Mary, Scapulars, Priestcraft, hot iron burns sacraments, treasury of merit exchange, Purgatory, prayers to saints, mystycism, pilgrimages, rites, etc. You wouldnt want to go off the deep end!

          Reply

          1. Most of those are straight out of the inspired books Protestants threw away. Even with that we can point to the books you all kept.

             Like faith alone try to throw out the book of James. Praying to the dead try to throw out Maccabbes and Revelation. Problem solved!!!

             Reply

             1. CK, Paul said the gospel is the power of GOD unto salvation to all who believe. Not to any church. You defend a church that ascribes salvation not to the power of God, but to the quality of your cooperation with inherent grace. Your working your way to heaven. It was telling to watch all the CCC people throw a fit when Eric W posted MacArthur saying the Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ, not any Pope. They said it was blasphemy and defended the Pope as the supreme care for all souls, yet Jesus left us the Spirit instead of Himself to care for our souls. God the Spirit is the care giver for my soul. This vicarious analogy exists in the Trinity. The Father who is veiled to us sent the Son, and the Son left us the Spirit, not the Pope. K

             2. CK, quit saying we throw out the book of James. We have the book of James in our bible. In fact we can give you the proper interpretation if you need it. K

       2. CK wrote,

          “The Church sets boundaries so believers don’t go off the deep end such as removing inspired books from the bible…”

          Pope Gregory the Great wrote,

          “With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books [Maccabees], though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony.” (Gregory, Moralia on Job, Volume II, Book XIX, chapter 34)

          I guess Pope Gregory (540 – 604 A.D.) went off the deep end, even though he had the fallible Synod of Rome (382 A.D.) to guide him. How is it that “the boundaries” that are so clear to you, could not contain Gregory the Great?

          Thanks,

          Tim

          Reply

          1. Sounds like his personal opinion And not binding on the faithful.

             We believe in free will. It didn’t contain Luther either. One can choose to climb over that boundary and step right off that cliff.

             Fornication is outside the boundaries yet there were Popes that ignored that also

             Reply

          2. CK,

             Are you saying that Gregory didn’t go off the deep end? Or are you saying that he wasn’t a believer? The boundaries were to keep believers from going off the deep end. Was Gregory not a believer?

             Thanks,

             Tim

             Reply

             1. Before I jump down another rabbit hole I’d like to wrap up the Early Christian belief in the real presence. Can you point me to early discourses? The Coptics split from the church very early yet the real presence was not the issue with anyone I can find.

                Thanks

             2. CK,

                The Coptics split from Rome because of Chalcedon (451 A.D.). By then, the idea of the Mass as a sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood was pretty widespread, so their split from Rome was late enough that the “real presence” you’re describing will not have been a point of division. If they had split at the end of the 4th century, instead of the middle of the 5th, there might be some evidence of disagreement on that particular point.

                Even so, the idea of either easterns or the westerns adoring the Eucharist would be foreign at that time. Even in the 6th Century, Pope Gelasius in 490 A.D. was denying what you call Transubstantiation: “yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in them” (Against Eutyches and Nestorius). As we have heard many times on this blog from Catholics, “Rome Catholics would never bow to worship what is known to be bread,” and yet they insist that Eucharistic Adoration was practiced by Roman Catholics, and therefore Gelasius, since the apostolic era. That has Gelasius worshiping what he knows very well to be bread in substance and nature. Do you think that Gelasius worshiped what he knew to be bread in substance and in nature?

                Thanks,

                Tim

    2. Eric W,

       Wrong!

       Protestants always try this ploy of accusing us of doing what you guys do. Let me explain;

       A prospective Catholic does indeed use his own mind to read history dealing with the 1st century, including the NT, Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, Suetonius, the Talmud, the Fathers, the gnostics, etc. etc.. Now, I must stress that at this point the Bible is not read as inspired but only as an accurate piece of history. He sees that there was a miracle working man who claimed to have been sent by God who started a Church based on 12 men, chief of whom was Simon bar Jonah. He sees that this Church can only be the Catholic Church.
       Using his mind, he is compelled to believe. He can willfully refuse to believe however if he doesn’t want to be led to where he doesn’t want to go i.e. change of life.

       At this point the person makes an act of Faith. Because of the trustworthiness of the Revealer, the man commits to all that has been revealed.
       Private judgment stops here for the Catholic. Now the guy accepts the Bible not just as another history book, but as inspired. Why? Because that same Church tells him it is.

       The future protestant never does make an act of Faith. He uses private judgement to interpret the Bible even after ‘coming to Christ”. Even if he joins a particular denomination with fixed teachings, he only joins because those teachings jive with his own judgments.

       Reply

       1. Jim said ” This man sees the church can only be the Catholic church” Nice story Jim, but untrue. 1st century people along with 20th century people dont become Christians by seeing or recognizing churches. They believe through hearing the Word of God with the ears. The Spirit regenerates a man’s heart thru HEARING the Word. You guys want to substitute the Roman Catholic church for everything. Salvation comes from hearing the gospel, and the only thing the church can do is pass on what God wrote. Got it. We dont worship churches or each other, we worship God in Spirit and in truth through Jesus Christ. K

          Reply

       2. Thanks Jim for being clear and concise. I can have a hard time explaining these things. Now I don’t have to 🙂

          Reply

       3. Jim, you wrote:
          Protestants always try this ploy of accusing us of doing what you guys do….Private judgment stops here for the Catholic. Now the guy accepts the Bible not just as another history book, but as inspired. Why? Because that same Church tells him it is.

          Response:
          CK wrote:
          I also looked at history. I can still have my own interpretation.
          ———————–

          You wasted your time with an explanation. Next time, direct your concerns to CK. Look at that CK-Protestant ploy ! Look at the word…STILL…STILL….STILL…. or, let’s look at ….MY OWN interpretation….MY OWN…..MY OWN….MY OWN….MY OWN….etc. Everybody, together….

          Reply

       4. ” Now we have received , not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may KNOW the things FREELY given to us by God” Catholics here is a bulletin! We have the Spirit of God SO THAT WE MAY KNOW THE THINGS FREELY GIVEN. You don’t, and thats why you look at us and say you can’t read your bible and understand. We KNOW. We don’t need your false church, we have God’s Word and the Spirit of God. He is the Vicar of God in the sense he was left when Christ went away, and HE cares for our souls. We don’t trust a man to care for our souls when the bible tells us we have a SPIRIT SO THAT WE MAY KNOW THE THINGS FREELY GIVEN. And incidentally we can spot error a mile away. And your in it. God bless. K

          Reply

29. A church that no longer focuses on Christ’s absence ceases to be a church. We point people to the Parousia in the Gospel. Christ died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again. Kingdoms of the world are passing away and the human institution of the Roman Catholic church and it’s people will pass away as sure as these worlds elements will burn. Fixation on the idol of real presence of the Rome’s death wafer and the church as the literal replacement for Christ as if Christ’s history could be repeated or imitated and as if Christ’s unique and specific work can become a model for eclessial action through the sacramental cosmos chain of a continuing incarnation of Christ, the active agent of redemption, who completes the work Jesus came to accomplish. We believers fix our eyes on Christ our hope and his return. We worship Christ in Spirit and truth. We don’t worship a church as the substitute for our savior. Listen to Peter ” Therefore repent and return, so that your sins might be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by mouth of His holy Prophets from ancient time. It is God who spoke these things in his Word. Those of faith look for the return of a savior, not from an altar, but from heaven where we are already seated. K

    Reply

30. Dear Jim,

    Like most people I’ve heard this quote before – just never addressed to me. It made me laugh a little because of this.

    Though I’m a woman and shouldn’t teach men, I can proclaim Christ’s Name. Philip’s daughters did, and many other women gave testimony to Him even before those who put them to death, from earliest times.

    2 Corinthians 5
    20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

    Maria

    Reply

    1. MARIA–
       You quoted Paul as saying: “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.”

       I thought there is only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ. Why is Paul saying God is calling through them instead of Christ?

       Reply

       1. Hi, Bob,

          You asked, “I thought there is only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ. Why is Paul saying God is calling through them instead of Christ?”

          The Lord is now in Heaven, at the right hand of the Majesty On High, and He has told us – commanded us – to speak for Him here on earth, that is, to preach the Gospel. Second, both Scriptures are true. There is One Mediator, and there are many ambassadors who speak the message He entrusted to us, that is, the Gospel:

          2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

          1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

          For His own good pleasure, the Lord Jesus Christ, our Great High Priest, our Mediator, chose to use us to bring His message of reconciliation to God to others.

          The One Mediator – our Great High Priest Whom we ambassadors tell others about:
          Hebrews 4:14-16
          14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

          The Message about Him that the ambassadors must speak:
          1 Corinthians 15
          Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

          The ambassadors didn’t mediate or reconcile, they didn’t die for us that we might live. Jesus did this. He has commanded us to speak for Him, and in so doing made us partakers in His sufferings and someday glory.

          God bless you, Bob!

          Maria

          Reply

          1. MARIA–
             You said: “He has commanded us to speak for Him, and in so doing made us partakers in His sufferings and someday glory.”

             1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.–Catechism of the Catholic Church

             Reply

             1. Bob, You cite 1996 of the Catechism, but that doesn’t tell the whole story does it. Reformed theology believes grace is demerited favor. ” While we were yet sinners Christ died for us.” You can’t earn it. You don’t merit your initiation into grace in the RC, but you merit your continuance in it. Grace is just the means of exchange on the churches merit system. We contribute nothing to our justification from beginning to end. Romans 4:16 says if a Roman Catholic wants to be saved by grace alone it will have to be by faith alone. Instead of repent and believe the gospel, Rome would have us do penance and live the gospel. Salvation is the power of GOD for salvation to all who believe. In Roman Catholicism its the quality of your cooperation with infused grace. Its a false system. For Rome justification is a recognition of an intrinsic qualification for a reward, for Paul it is a gift to someone who is intrinsically and utterly unqualified. I hope this helps to distinguish biblical Christianity from the false Roman religion. God bless K

31. TIM said to CK–
    “Even so, the idea of either easterns or the westerns adoring the Eucharist would be foreign at that time. Even in the 6th Century, Pope Gelasius in 490 A.D. was denying what you call Transubstantiation: “yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in them” (Against Eutyches and Nestorius). As we have heard many times on this blog from Catholics, “Rome Catholics would never bow to worship what is known to be bread,” and yet they insist that Eucharistic Adoration was practiced by Roman Catholics, and therefore Gelasius, since the apostolic era. That has Gelasius worshiping what he knows very well to be bread in substance and nature. Do you think that Gelasius worshiped what he knew to be bread in substance and in nature?”

    I’ll have to hand it to you, Tim. You sure have a mind that tracks like a laser beam. It is focused so finely on the details that it doesn’t see the big picture. What you are describing here with Gelasius is called consubstantiation–the substance of Christ WITH the substance of bread. In other words, the bread and wine never change, they remain 100% bread and wine. And they are presented with the Real Presence of Christ alongside, or on top of, or intermingled with, however you want to call it.
    Gelasius is not worshipping bread and wine. He is worshipping Christ who appears with the bread and wine. If Christ was standing next to a tree in the Garden of Gethsemane and Thomas bowed before him to worship Him as God, would you say that Thomas was worshipping the tree also?

    Reply

    1. Bob, you wrote,

       I’ll have to hand it to you, Tim. You sure have a mind that tracks like a laser beam.

       Well, Transubstantiation, Eucharistic Adoration, Real Presence, the Mass—well, they’re pretty central to Roman Catholicism. One might even say that it is “the source and summit of the Christian life.”

       You continued,

       It is focused so finely on the details that it doesn’t see the big picture.

       The Devil is in these details, Bob. You continued,

       “What you are describing here with Gelasius is called consubstantiation–the substance of Christ WITH the substance of bread. In other words, the bread and wine never change, they remain 100% bread and wine. And they are presented with the Real Presence of Christ alongside, or on top of, or intermingled with, however you want to call it.”

       I look forward to watching you convince Roman Catholics of that, which should be easy, since it is so “obvious” to you.

       “Gelasius is not worshipping bread and wine.”

       That is true. Eucharistic adoration did not exist until the 11th century.

       “He is worshipping Christ who appears with the bread and wine.”

       Anachronisms aside, Bob, Jesus is the bread and wine, according to Roman Catholics. You continued,

       “If Christ was standing next to a tree in the Garden of Gethsemane and Thomas bowed before him to worship Him as God, would you say that Thomas was worshipping the tree also?”

       The tree is not the object of Thomas’ hypothetical devotion. The bread and wine themselves are the objections of Roman Catholic adoration. Try to convince a Roman Catholic that he is worshipping Someone next to the bread and wine, and you’ll have a fight on your hands, especially if he was properly trained by Hardon. Jesus is not mystically present next to the bread. He IS the bread (so they say):

       “We have Jesus Christ inside there in a way that He is not present anywhere else except in heaven. … There is no devotion that modern Popes have more emphasized than devotion to the Sacred Heart for the best reasons because the Eucharist is the Sacred Heart . . . making sure that we know His physical Heart is there. … But let’s make sure we know what the object of this faith is. It is not that Christ is present there as God. He was, on earth before the Incarnation. It is not even that the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood is there. It is that Christ is present with His physical properties.” (John Hardon, Devotion to the Real Presence and Growth in Sanctity)

       He’s not “next to, or with, or near, or mystically transignified by the bread,” Bob. In Rome, He is the bread.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

32. Tim said – The Coptics split from Rome because of Chalcedon (451 A.D.). By then, the idea of the Mass as a sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood was pretty widespread, so their split from Rome was late enough that the “real presence” you’re describing will not have been a point of division. If they had split at the end of the 4th century, instead of the middle of the 5th, there might be some evidence of disagreement on that particular point.

    Me – . Coptics and Orthodox Adore the Eucharist during the Liturgy. They don’t belive one should adore the Eucharist outside of it. Donwe both agree that the real presence means Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine?

    You say this is a novel and heretical idea that had swept the Chritian world by 451 AD. Yet there are no writings by any church father specifically denouncing this belief. We have writings denouncing every major heresy but this one. I say the reason we don’t have any writings denouncing it is because everyone believed in the real presence.

    Like jim asked sometime ago, where was the outrage?

    Reply

    1. CK,

       Can you define “real presence” for me? By “real presence” people mean Jesus is “physically present,” while others mean Jesus is “spiritually or mystically present.”

       What does “real presence” mean to you? Physically present?

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Tim,

          Most definitions ( but not all ) avoid the word “physical”.

          Christ is “substantially” present. Substance cannot be discerned by the senses while physical can.

          Real Presence simply means Christ is present whether you believe it or not.

          Reply

          1. Thanks, Jim. You are quite right when you say,

             “Most definitions ( but not all ) avoid the word “physical”.”

             John Hardon does not. He writes in his talk, Jesus Christ is Physically Present on Earth,

             “I’ve taught over six hundred of my own Jesuit priests and asked our priests who are struggling with their faith nowadays and the bottom line where they are confused – they are confused and they don’t realize that in the Eucharist is the same identical Jesus who Mary carried for nine months in her womb and gave birth to in Bethlehem, Who lived, suffered, died, and rose from the dead and now at the right hand of His heavenly Father; that God became man so that Jesus Christ is God become man and that Jesus Christ, the God-man, is really present in the Holy Eucharist. And this is the basic difference between all the non-Christian religions of the world, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, that they believe in God; often confused, in fact, in their faith of who God is, but they absolutely deny that God became man in the person of Jesus Christ. Moreover, here is also the basic difference between Catholic Christianity and say the Christianity that separated from the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century. As Catholics we believe that Jesus Christ is physically on earth.”

             Hardon goes on, complaining about the fact that one of the highest ranking Roman Catholic liturgist in America, was getting this wrong, and that is why Hardon had to be so hard at work in America—to set people straight on true Roman Catholic thinking on the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist:

             “I did tell you didn’t I about the layman, the author, who couldn’t get an imprimatur? I haven’t heard from him since he talked to the bishop. I said what happened? They wouldn’t give an imprimatur because he said that Christ is physically present in the Holy Eucharist. He asked him but he would not give him the imprimatur. The archbishop of a rather large archdiocese, I’d rather not identify him, but so he hasn’t written me since. Maybe he has but I haven’t had a chance to examine my mail. This is very real. And I should say the archbishop of that diocese is one of the leading bishops in the country in the liturgy. So we’ve got, in other words, that’s why I’m coming here, that’s why I went to, I told the sisters that the last place on earth I should be today, is in Moscow. Sometimes to some of my friends I’ve got to prove my sanity. They think I’m crazy. But somebody, somebody somewhere has still better say, well, what we are saying now, Jesus Christ is on earth.”

             Those are pretty strong words—correcting an Archbishop “of a rather large archdiocese” for not granting an imprimatur for what John Hardon had been teaching explicitly to “over six hundred of my own Jesuit priests.”

             Thanks,

             Tim

             Reply

             1. Tim, that’s a interesting point. Now can we get back to the Church Fathers? You claim the real presence heresy was full blown by 451 AD. I’m really interested in the writings before that time addressing, what anyone with your view, to be a heresy beyond proportions! So many Christians adoring bread!!!!

             2. CK,

                You wrote,

                “You claim the real presence heresy was full blown by 451 AD.”

                But what I said was the “Mass Sacrifice” heresy was “pretty widespread.” I did not say “the real presence” heresy was “full blown“:

                “By then, the idea of the Mass as a sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood was pretty widespread, so their split from Rome was late enough that the “real presence” you’re describing will not have been a point of division.”

                The reason this matters is that Roman Catholics don’t even know what Real Presence means, and yet with that grossly under-defined term they back-fill every Eucharistic reference in the Church Fathers with what Rome currently believes. That is why BOB can read consubstantiation into Gelasius even while you refuse to read transubstantiation out of him. Bob wrote:

                “What you are describing here with Gelasius is called consubstantiation–the substance of Christ WITH the substance of bread. In other words, the bread and wine never change, they remain 100% bread and wine. And they are presented with the Real Presence of Christ alongside, or on top of, or intermingled with, however you want to call it.”

                Try to peddle that at Catholic Answers, and they’ll call you a heretic. And Gelasius, too, if he really believed in consubstantiation. But SP some time ago told us that Bob is mistaken in his thinking, because Gelasius, when he says ‘substance’ and ‘nature,’ he means what Trent later defined as ‘species’ and ‘accidents.’ Of course he did. 😉 The Early Church always “meant” what Trent later held to be true. So when Gelasius says “yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in them,” what he meant was that the substance and nature of bread and wine do cease to be in them. And when Chrysostom said “the nature of bread remains in it” even after the words of consecration, what he meant was that the “nature of bread” does not remain in it. And when Augustine said John 6 is “figurative,” and that we are not to drink the blood that flowed from Jesus’ side, he meant it the way Trent and Paul VI did more than a thousand years later, which is to say, John 6 is not figurative, and we are to drink the blood that flowed from Jesus’ side.

                This is why it is so important to define terms. Bob’s defense of Gelasius is that “the bread and wine never change, they remain 100% bread and wine,” which is language that would never fly with Trent, CK, Jim, the Catechism or John Hardon and his more than 600 Jesuit priests who have been taught that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist, which is why we are told that we should pray to the Eucharist, and not just adore it. The Eucharist is where Jesus (allegedly) is physically.

                In other words, Bob’s attempt to defend Gelasius is to say that he was a heretic. As EWTN reminds us, at moment of consecration is supposed to be the moment “in which the bread ceases to be bread and the wine ceases to be wine.” They are changed and they are no longer bread and wine—the very thing Bob said Gelasius was not supporting.

                So CK, when you say, “Tim, that’s a interesting point. Now can we get back to the Church Fathers?,” it seems to me that you would very much like us to get back to discussing transubstantiation in the early Church before we get lost in what the words actually mean. But rushing in without a definition is precisely why Bob can read Gelasius and conclude that the medieval Church taught consubstantiation. You wanted early evidence for a rejection of Transubstantiation—well, Bob has provided it to you.

                So, CK, what do you mean by real presence? are you with Hardon who insisted that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist? Or are you with the Archbishop who denied His physical presence? Or are you with Gelasius and Bob on consubstantiation? You can’t just rush in an claim the victory on the “real presence,” if even Rome today still doesn’t have the words to explain what it means for Jesus to be really present.

                You continued,

                “I’m really interested in the writings before that time addressing, what anyone with your view, to be a heresy beyond proportions! So many Christians adoring bread!!!!”

                If you have evidence of people adoring the Eucharist prior to the 11th century, please provide it. The folks over at the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies are at this moment desperately searching for such evidence:

                “Whatever the solutions to these modern theological and liturgical issues, most scholars trace them back to medieval theology and liturgical practice. They all agree and repeatedly say that the practice of Eucharistic adoration goes back at least to the early thirteenth century certainly in the Lowlands and then somewhat later in the century in Rome and throughout western Christendom, where in 1264 the Feast of Corpus Christi was the first officially mandated feast for the universal church by Urban IV in his bull Transiturus. Also it was in that century that the doctrine or theology of transubstantiation was mandated in the Fourth Lateran Council to explain how the real presence came about. It was also in this century that St. Thomas Aquinas composed his magnificent Eucharistic hymns, the Tantum ergo sacramentum with its suggestive words “Therefore we, before him bending, this great Sacrament we revere,” and his O salutaris hostia with its equally suggestive words, “O saving Victim, opening wide the gate of heaven to man below.” Some scholars then push the issue of Eucharistic adoration back to the eleventh century with the controversy over the meaning of the Eucharist by Berengar of Tours, who argued against the “real presence” and was condemned and forced to retract his idea with a profession repeated not long ago by Pope Paul VI (as the successor to “our predecessor,” Gregory VII) in his Encyclical Mysterium fidei.7 The case of Berengar, who took his support in the writings of Ratramnus of Corbie (whom he called Bertramnus), then leads scholars to push the issue back to Carolingian times with the debates between Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus of Corbie over the meaning of the Eucharist, which even involved the intervention of the king, Charles the Bald, who after examining the positions of Radbertus and Ratramnus gave his “official” royal approval to Radbertus’s theory of the “real presence.”

                In the thirteenth century the doctrine of the “real presence” found in transubstantiation was reinforced visually in Eucharistic adoration. Could there have been something similar in the ninth century, in the Carolingian Age? It can be suggested that there likely was. Naturally, there was no doctrine of transubstantiation, and one immediately objects to the idea of Eucharistic adoration in the age of Charlemagne by pointing out that the term “adoratio” was condemned during the Iconoclastic controversy by Charlemagne through Theodulf of Orléans in the Libri Carolini (Opus Caroli regis contra synodum) and by numerous other court theologians.” (Roger E. Reynolds, Eucharistic Adoration in the Carolingian Era? Exposition of Christ in the Host)

                Reynold’s concluding words ought to carry some weight with you:

                “Eucharist adoration of the host in the thirteenth century and beyond was clearly not like that suggested by the illustrations of the host held in Christ’s hand in our manuscripts. The idea of transubstantiation had not yet been developed, and hosts of azymes and bread were still used in the ninth century and beyond. But add the theology “real presence” developed by Radbertus of Corbie and approved by Charles – something not present in the late eighth century during the Iconoclastic controversy – to the striking presence of the host in the Majestas pages and one can sense the first steps toward Eucharistic adoration developed in the high and later Middle Ages.”

                CK, if the theology of the “real presence” wasn’t even present in the late eighth century, what makes you think it was present in the 4th and 5th? Well, at least we have Hardon’s definitive defense of Eucharistic Adoration:

                “Certainly by the 800’s, the Blessed Sacrament was kept within the monastic church itself, close to the altar. … The practice of reserving the Eucharist in religious houses was so universal that there is no evidence to the contrary even before the year 1000.”

                You mean for 1,000 years, people stored bread in places?! Well that settles it! 😉

                Thanks,

                Tim

33. KEVIN–
    You said: “Bob, You cite 1996 of the Catechism, but that doesn’t tell the whole story does it. Reformed theology believes grace is demerited favor. ”

    Yeah, Don’t you hate when the Catholics teach that justification is by grace? It matches up with what the Bible says.”

    You also said: “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us.” You can’t earn it. You don’t merit your initiation into grace in the RC, but you merit your continuance in it.”

    Yeah, the Bible says that too. That’s what “perseverance” means.
    per·se·ver·ance /ˌpərsəˈvirəns/ : noun
    steadfastness in doing something despite difficulty or delay in achieving success.
    “his perseverance with the technique illustrates his single-mindedness”
    synonyms: persistence, tenacity, determination, staying power, indefatigability, steadfastness, purposefulness;
    1Timothy 4:16 Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.
    Revelation 3:10 Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.
    Hebrews 10:36 You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised.
    And your favorite epistle of Paul:
    Romans 5:1 ff Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; and perseverance, character; and character, hope.

    Kevin, you have no excuse.

    Reply

    1. Bob , said ” Ya, don’t you hate that the Catholics teach that justification is by grace” Unfortunately they don’t teach that justification is ALL by grace! Your “final justification” will be based on your cooperation with infused grace. Bob, are we saved by grace alone or are we saved by assisting grace that works in concert with free will cooperation?! Be careful how you answer, your soul depends on it. There I summed it up for you in one nice compact sentence. You have no excuse. Are you a Christian or a Roman Catholic? They ain’t the same. Our men gave their lives to defend this truth. It wouldn’t matter to me if every church Father believed a semi pelagian gospel, because they aren’t my sole infallible rule of faith. The bible is. Paul gave no ground on this issue to the Bob’s and the CK’s of his day, the jusdaizers. And I will give no ground to synergism, none. He didn’t allow one work to corrupt grace in the gospel. Not one. Have a great day. K

       Reply

34. Hi everyone, I wanted to share some thoughts with all of you. John 20: 28,29 ” Thomas answered and said to Him ” My Lord and my God” Jesus said ” Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are who did not see, and yet believed.” Today I read a Catholic on CCC say they would be a Protestant if it weren’t for the real presence. Of course Catholics will tell us we don’t understand this because we don’t have what they call ” full communion” Jesus right there physically and substantially present in the Eucharist with them. But is this faith in light of John 20:29? Hebrews says that faith is the assurance of things “hoped for” and the conviction of things “not seen” Jesus says blessed are those who “don’t see,” yet believe. Jesus knew He was going away and would not return until the proper time. He said he would not Sup with us until his return. He left us with the Holy Spirit and his Word. One great theologian said He isn’t in the bread, but He is in the one taking the Bread, since the Spirit of Christ dwells in our hearts. Apart from faith and the Word and the Spirit the bread and wine of the supper mean nothing. But because Christ dwells in our hearts through the Spirit, and because His physical body is at the right hand of God until he returns ( Augustine said that the church has been deprived of the body of Christ until He returns), the bread takes its place as a reminder of the body broken and the blood shed for our sins at the cross. Jesus clearly indicates this when He says “do this in remembrance of Me” And Paul says we commemorate His death until He comes again. This we do in faith and hope of his return. and this it what Jesus means when He said the things I tell you are Spirit, the flesh profits nothing. And to my point I made yesterday that a church that points people away from the looking to the return of Christ, and a church that substitutes itself for the historical physical body of Christ, and a church that worships the bread of the supper as the physical presence Jesus, and a church that usurps His uniquely finished work and and makes the acts of the church, their sacraments ex opere operato the active agent of redemption in completing His atonement, can only be described in one way. Roman Catholicism is Unbelief. We have been incorporated into the body of Christ through the Spirit, and as we live in this Eucharistic tension between heaven and earth, we do so through the Spirit and the Word by faith. ” blessed those who do not see, and yet believe”. God bless

    Reply

    1. Kevin, thanks for bringing up the issue of walking by faith, not by sight – and awaiting the Lord’s return.
       Maria

       Reply

       1. Your welcome mia cara sorella. Spero che Ti senti meglio. I said your welcome my dear sister, hope you are feeling better. K

          Reply

          1. Quit hitting on her. She has enough problems already.

             Reply

             1. Jim, you have been gone for awhile. Maria has Italian in her background and I’m Italian. So we share a few phrases in Italian. She is my sister in Christ. Maybe you would like to apologize to her. K

          2. Kevin,

             A message translated by the SDL free translation, because my Italian is minimal:

             La mia fede, mio fratello, è in Dio, Padre del Signore nostro Gesù Cristo, e in Gesù stesso, il suo Figlio Unigenito. ADORO il suo libro sacro, la Bibbia, è l’ancoraggio.
             Sì, la mia salute è migliorata! Grazie!

             For anyone else, this is what I put into the translator to get the Italian:

             My faith, my brother, is in the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in Jesus Himself, His Only Begotten Son. I love His Holy Book, the Bible – it is my anchor.
             Yes, my health is improved! Thank you!

             Maria

             Reply

             1. Maria, perfect Italian. K

       2. MARIA–
          That is what the Real Presence is all about.
          Sung at the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament:
          TANTUM ERGO SACRAMÉNTUM
          Venerémur cérnui:
          Et antíquum documéntum
          Novo cedat rítui:
          Præstet fides suppleméntum
          Sénsuum deféctui.
          Genitóri, Genitóque
          Laus et jubilátio,
          Salus, honor, virtus quoque
          Sit et benedíctio:
          Procedénti ab utróque
          Compar sit laudátio.
          Amen. Alleluja.

          Which translates:
          Down in adoration falling,
          This great Sacrament we hail,
          O’er ancient forms of worship
          Newer rites of grace prevail;
          Faith will tell us Christ is present,
          When our human senses fail.
          To the Everlasting Father,
          And the Son who made us free
          And the Spirit, God proceeding
          From them Each eternally,
          Be salvation, honour, blessing,
          Might and endless majesty.
          Amen. Alleluia.

          By faith and not our senses.

          Reply

          1. Dear Bob,

             As a Christian I walk by faith not by sight. The Spirit of God, through God’s Word (imperishable seed) gave me new life and forgiveness by drawing me to Jesus Christ, and so this is how I walk now – by faith.

             The Church of Rome, in which I was raised and educated, didn’t teach me about coming to Jesus Christ in repentance and faith. It gave me its teachings about how to be in a right relationship with itself and, because of that, escape hell and go to heaven. Jesus was given to me in the Eucharist, but truly it was as if He came with being a Catholic, that is, with being right with this church. I had no real relationship with the One Who died to save me from my sins, and this is easily provable because I continued to sin as a way of life, lying, and backbiting, etcetera.

             I can’t sing Tantum Ergo because I can’t worship a Sacrament but Jesus Christ Himself, Who is in Heaven, and Who will be revealed from Heaven in flaming fire.

             Do you sing Tantum Ergo? How do you know about Catholic Liturgy? I understand that Methodism is an offshoot of Anglicanism, which is now coming into union with Rome, but you aren’t a Catholic.

             Don’t you see that there is enough wonder and awe in Who the Lord is and what He does, and has done, and will do, that we don’t need to invent mysteries to venerate? Don’t you think the Lord is tired of such doings, just as He was with those to whom He spoke through Malachi?

             Maria

             Reply

             1. Maria, if it can be said any clearer or better than you just said it, I dont think its possible. K

             2. MARIA–
                You said: “Jesus was given to me in the Eucharist, but truly it was as if He came with being a Catholic, that is, with being right with this church. I had no real relationship with the One Who died to save me from my sins, and this is easily provable because I continued to sin as a way of life, lying, and backbiting, etcetera.”

                Do you really blame your sinful actions on the Church, or do you think immaturity had something to do with it? I went through the same thing in my religious life. My teenage years and most of my twenties were wrought with irresponsibility. As I settled in my marriage and had kids, I soon gained a sense of responsibility. I looked at my little girl in her crib and it hit me like a ton of bricks! I am responsible for the well being of this wonderful little girl. And then my Dad died suddenly and I had to take over the family business. Another ton of bricks! I had to grow up real fast. I knew I needed structure in my life so that I could provide that structure to others. Gradually, I came back to the Church that I had left behind as a kid. I have been growing in righteousness ever since.

                The teaching of the Church has not changed. My perspective has. I pay a lot closer attention now than i used to. My knowledge of Catholic doctrine is a long story, but in short, I learned it to repair a longtime friendship I nearly destroyed. What a wonderful journey it has been so far.

    2. Everybody,

       I saw that last September Bryan Cross yelled at Kevin for.

       “So you keep constructing and criticizing a straw man, because you haven’t yet grasped the other paradigm.”

       Reply

       1. Jim, just so you know Bryan Cross in an attempt to seem really smart, uses straw man, ad hominem, assertion, begs the question, etc. 1000 times in a sentence. Get where I’m going? K

          Reply

35. Who is this person on CCC? I think I’ll invite him to the Methodist Church. We have the Real Presence.
    Thanks, Kevin!

    Reply

36. KEVIN–
    You said: “Bob , said ” Ya, don’t you hate that the Catholics teach that justification is by grace” Unfortunately they don’t teach that justification is ALL by grace! Your “final justification” will be based on your cooperation with infused grace. Bob, are we saved by grace alone or are we saved by assisting grace that works in concert with free will cooperation?! Be careful how you answer, your soul depends on it.”

    Looks like the Catholic Church uses the same language that Paul uses in the Bible. He doesn’t use the word “alone” either.

    Reply

37. Bob, I asked you a direct question, are we saved by grace alone, or assisting grace in concert with free will cooperation. Which? K

    Reply

    1. I’m not BOB but I play one on TV. We are saved by grace alone, but we must cooperate with His grace. Now you might think my soul is in jeopardy, but don’t worry yourself, I hedged my bet by saying the sinners prayer.

       Reply

    2. KEVIN–
       Yes. We are saved by grace, through faith. Sola Christi? You betcha! Sola Gracia? You betcha! Sola fide? No siree! Faith never comes alone. God gives us grace so that we can do something with it. It’s called training in rightousness. Do you think God will let you into His heaven without sanctifying you first?
       And yes, God created us with the free will to accept or reject His grace. I do not believe in total depravity or limited atonement. God didn’t make junk, and Christ’s sacrifice opened the Gate for everyone He created. “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9

       Reply

       1. Bob said ” you betcha, God gives us grace to do something with it” ya, earn your salvation right. How many masses do you have to do to get there? Because if you dont get there, you dont get there. You continued ” God dont make junk, I dont believe in total depravity.” We know, your good enough to get yourself to heaven, you just need a 10000 masses, but you’ll get there. Now thats a powerfull Jesus, only has to die 100000 times. You continued ” Jesus opened up the door” Great Jesus died on a cross to crack the door open so you can do the rest. All along we thought He full filled all righteouness, payed for our sin and earned us eternal life, but its good to know He went thru all that to crack the door open.K

          Reply

          1. So we are are all saved or damned immediately when we are created?

             By the way Jesus has that door wide open for us. His commandments are not that difficult, man is just that stubborn and blind to see it. Speaking of stubborn and blind….

             Reply

             1. Romans 8:29 those He foreknew He predestined, He called, He justified, He glorified. Its all aorist past tense. Read it for yourself. Irresistible grace! Who said his comandments are burdensome, I said they dont merit salvation. He prepared our pworks that we would walk in them. To understand the biblical concept pppoof substitution and election, one has to see his utter sinfulness

       2. Bob I have continued to correct you and you continue to say faith alone. If your going to attack the Reformed position and deny it can you please at least explain it correctly. Faith alone in Christ alone. We are saved by faith alone because it receives Christ and brings Him to our heart. He lived a perfect life and died in our stead and earned us eternal life. Faith is trust, or we say the the instrument that receives our perfect righteousness ( Christ’s passive and active obedience Rom 5:19) and justifies us. It is a legal declaration. ” Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. Abraham simply believed the promise and was righteous before the bar of God. Again love is SECOND in natural order, it stretches out to neighbor, thats why we are never said to be justified by love in scripture. You wrongly believe God will look at the amount of your love in the end and give you a thumbs up or a thumbs down, or you will have to be sent to Sarlac for 1000 years of purging, then maybe you can enter. but the Scripture says its appointed every man once to die, then judgment. Also the souls of the saints are crying out now for their heavenly bodies, so there is no Purgatory. True Christians have been judged righteous and have passed out of judgment. Our works will be rewarded, but only in the sense of God rewarding his own works, not in regard to salvation. No one ever said that works aren’t the result of saving faith, they aren’t the ground of our justification. And when you read the book of Galatians and Romans, anyone trying to add works to justification won’t make it to heaven. Romans 4:16 says if a Catholic wants to be justified by grace alone it will have to be by faith alone. Paul distinguishes justification and sanctification but does not separate them. In a sense all of salvation was forensic for Paul. It is undergirded by justification. 1 Corinthians 1:30 says by HIS doing we are in Christ, who became to us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. He became all those things to us. Its past tense. The salvation that has already been procured is simply being applied to us now by faith, but not ex opere operato as reward to our merits. Paul condemns this. Its all by grace alone, not grace in concert with freewill cooperation. Salvation is a gift , its unconditional election, irresistible grace. K

          Reply

          1. The Protestant ordo salutis details the doctrine of salvation considered more broadly than justification by faith alone.
             Foreknowledge
             Predestination
             Election
             Prevenient Grace
             External Calling
             Repentance and faith
             Justification
             Regeneration
             Sanctification
             Perseverance (conditional)
             Glorification
             When it comes to completed salvation, faith can never be alone!

             Reply

             1. Bob, Ephesians 2:8 ” For by grace you have been saved through faith, itis not that of yourselves, it isca gift of God, not a result of works.” When we believe we are as righteous as we are when die. He is our righteousnes. ” when He obtained eternal salvation He sat down at the right hand of God. ” The gospel is the power of God for salvation to all who believe. For the righteous shall live by faith. From predestination to glorification, its all of God. K

38. Kevin gave BOBCK a choice, are we saved by grace alone, or are we saved by assisting grace in concert with freewill cooperation. BobCK chose curtain number 2 assisting grace in concert with freewill cooperation. Thank you for answering thd question. Paul said in Romans 11: 6 if its by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, or grace is no longer grace.

    Reply

39. Tim, I wanted to give you a heads up as well as anyone interested. Michael Taylor gives Debbie one of the greatest disassemblings on Transubstantiation on the Mass that I have ever read on CCC. It would be insructive for all who are interested to read. He is retorting her post on John 6 and Tim he actually hits on the meaning of real presence, the same question you ask CK. Anyway, for all interested. K

    Reply

40. I’ll ask again:
    If Christ was standing next to a tree in the Garden of Gethsemane and Thomas bowed before him to worship Him as God, would you say that Thomas was worshipping the tree also?

    What if only Thomas could see Him and you could not? Would you call him a tree-worshipper?

    Reply

41. Christ isnt a tree, and He is not a piece of bread, He has a body like ours, only now its glorified. And his glorified body reigns high above the heavens as King of heaven and earth, it isnt traped in a piece of dough when the Priest says hocus pocus and makes God on the altar. He isnt a piece of bread, He isnt a golden calf, He isnt a tree, He isnt cosmic, He isnt the slave of a Priest his regent, He is God, declared Son of God, raised for our j u stification. He actually accomplished something. He perfected those who are being sanctified. Its all Him, monergism, Im just living the miracle. Salvation is from the Lord, and for believers who trust Him alone Te telestai! K

    Reply

42. Bob, said ” do you think God willnlet yoh into heaven without sanctifying you first” positionally Im my perfect righteouness is already in heaven. Have you not read 2 Corinthians 5:21 He became sin, and I become the righteouness of God, in Him. It doesnt say I become internally righteous, it says I become the righteouness of God in Him. Or do you ignore Hebrews 10:14 that says by one offering He perfected me even though I am now being sanctified. Or do you just ignore that Romans 5:1 says we have been already justified aorist past and yet I havent finished being sanctified. Or do you ignore Romans 8:1 which tells me there is now no condennation fo Christians before my sanctification is complete. Or do you ignore Romans 5:19 that says by His obedience I have been justified. Or do you ignore Ephesians 2: that says I am saved by faith apart from anything I do, or anything coming from ourselves. Or do you ignore the fact I have been sealed in the Spirit, or maybe you ignore that I have and inheritance that cant fade away, or that I have passed out of darkness and death and judgment into life, or that I have been adpoted, or have been reconciled past tense by his blood, or that He loses none, nor that is the author and finisher of our faith, or that I have been transfered from the domain of darkness into the kingdom of light, or that He swore by 2 immutable things his promise and his oath, or in Titus 3: 5 tgat He saved me not according to my righteouss deeds by according to his mercy, or that God justifies ungodly men who do not work but believe, or no one can bring a charge against God’s ELECT, or it is God who justifies, or that He who began a good work in me He will perfect it till the day of Christ, or do you ignore its a simply a gift all by his grace, we cant earn it nor do we deserve it. Did I miss anything. My has saved me, is saving me, and will save me. Its finished, its all up to Him and He promised to get me there because He declared me just and He wiped away all my sins. I can obey Him, do his will, and when I fail know I havecan advocate with the father, Jesus Christ the righteous. Nothing can separate me from the love of God, no mortal sin, nothing. His nature is mercy and forgiveness. He has freely given us all things, most of all eternal life. ” Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly beyond all we ask or think, be glory and dominion forever. How big is your God Bob? Big enough to elect you to salvation and make sure He never loses one of His elect? Those who trust Christ alone and not in their obedience know He has accepted them. K

    Reply

    1. Kevin in your religion it seems that YOU don’t come to trust in God. That would take effort (work on your part) God makes you trust him and keeps others from trusting Him. Remember, GOD has decided our fate before we are born and you have zero control.

       Nothing can separate you from the love of God? Actually in your religion God can will trick you into thinking you are feeling His love. Your faith counts for nothing. It’s just a feeling that could go away if you are not elect, unless of course you think God owes the non elect the gift of faith.

       Who proclaimed you elect other than yourself?

       Reply

       1. Ya my religion the bible calls pure and undefiled religion, biblical Christianity. I have no idea the other stuff you said to me. Bottom line CK, Catholics hate election. Its right in front of there eyes in the bible, but they have to deny it. They hate it because it destroys synergism and will worship. Here is the gospel, we are dead in sin without hope, and while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. He chooses us, regenerates us we repent and believe, justified, sanctified and glorified. All a work of God. Our cooperation has nothing to do with our justification, it is simply the result of saving faith. You try to make your standard of justice God’s standard of justice. Its not. God chooses some and passes over others. Lets face it, for those who understand their utter sinfulness, it would be fair for Him to throw all into hell. The fact that He saves some PTL. But this would be hard for someone who believes God sent his Son to die on the cross to give them a little kick start, and then sits back and watches if they can get there. Now thats a loving God, know what Im sayin! K

          Reply

       2. CK asked Kevin:
          Who proclaimed you elect other than yourself?

          Response:
          Away, with your damnable hypocrisy. Before you throw it out, let me try: Who proclaimed you a True Catholic other than yourself ? Really, I want to know who knows you have a true, God-given habit of faith in the soul.

          Reply

    2. And there you have it. Kevinism in a nutshell.

       Reply

43. Kevin said – Romans 8:29 those He foreknew He predestined, He called, He justified, He glorified. Its all aorist past tense. Read it for yourself. Irresistible grace! Who said his comandments are burdensome, I said they dont merit salvation. He prepared our pworks that we would walk in them. To understand the biblical concept pppoof substitution and election, one has to see his utter sinfulness

    Me – Irresistable grace. That explains why you brush aside most of the bible. Why do you waste time here trying to get people to leave Catholicism? Our fate is sealed regardless of whether or not we leave, believe in faith alone, etc… All we need to do is just sit on my rocking chair with a beer and wait. We are all puppets created for God’s amusement. You on the other hand were created for our amusement it seems.

    Reply

    1. Kevinism is called “saving the already saved”. It makes no sense but is sounds really good. He’s already in heaven but his body is still here tormenting us.

       Reply

    2. CK wrote:
       Our fate is sealed regardless of whether or not we leave, believe in faith alone, etc… All we need to do is just sit on my rocking chair with a beer and wait.

       Response:
       Why can’t Fatalist Accusers say we need to run, destroy all chairs, drink V8 and be impatient ? It’s fate for crying out loud !

       Reply

       1. CK how many times do younhave to be told it isnt belief in faith alone, its faith alone in Christ alone. Meaning our faith isnt in a church, or ourselves, or our spiffy love, or our works, but in Christ and his righteouness alone. Thats Paul’s gospel, and he got ig directly from Jesus. K

          Reply

          1. Can I be saved if I don’t believe in faith alone?

             Reply

             1. CK, im sorry, I missed this post. You asked ” can I be saved if I dont believe in faith alone” First of all, Walt is taking you through the WCF and justification. He is also taking you through the verse you brought up about working out our salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work in us …… Nobody can be saved by believing in faith alone. We are justified only by faith, and not the other graces tha follow. All of us would agree that all those with saving faith will receive these other graces such as love. But we arent justified by love or any sanctifying work God does in us. The reason Rome’s gospel violates the gospel and the doctrin ed of jbfa is because they make you cooperation with infused grace the basis for your final justification. We call our cooperation with God sanctification, but it has nothing to do with us being justified. Why? Because we are justified when we believe because the righteouness of Christ is imputed to us. Our sanctification is simply the outworking of of God’s work in us thru the Spirit. The best way to understand this is when parents adopt a child, there are legal realties and relational realties. They become yours when you adpot them, and even though they may behave badly at times, they dont lose their place as your children. So when the Spirit regenerates us thru the Word, we repent believe, are justified, adopted, sanctified, glorified. We are declared righteous before the bar of God because Christ obeyed perfectly, died on the cross, and provided eternal life for us. He is just, and justifier of those who have faith in Jesus. We are forgiven and considered righteous before God because of his obedience Rom. 5:19. We call him our substitute. Now we live a holy life in service to Him, thankful for the free gift we have recieved and the status of always being his child. The RC’ gospel is opposite. You do your level best and God gives you justifying grace. But as Walt has shown you in Acts 13, As many as were appointed to eternal life believed. Iow God gives us grace and we do. Thats why we say monergism. Its all a gift of God, even our cooperation. We simply live by faith, pursue holiness, knowing our justification, as well as all of salvation has has been procured by Christ. K

       2. Maybe because you have to ignore large chunks of the bible to sell that kind of fate. That’s the only way it sells.

          Reply

          1. CK, I understand its tough to understand what Im about to tell you because you cant get it from a lame 15 minute topical homily from and RC Priest, but scripture is exegeted in a certain manner. We interpret scrpture with scripture within its proper context. Jesus doesnt teach on justification in the Gospels. Paul does in the Epistles. The sermon on the mound Jesus is dealing with the law. In fact Jesus re states what is required of it. When he says if you even lust in your mind you have committed adultry. Hecset the standard of the law, perfection. No one can keep it, indeed no man or woman has ever been able to keep it. Enter the gospel which is by faith in Christ and what He did. The law drives us to the gospel. You cant conflate them. Thats why when Rome makes Jesus a kinder gentler Moses with a new law, and easier law, it is a false gospel. Rome interpreted the gospel as giving the believer the oppurtunity to attain it thru their obedience. It wrongly conflated lawcand gospel and corrupted faith at its core. Paul says law isnt faith. Rome’s gospel is false. K

             Reply

             1. Actually St John said it’s easier. He says it’s not burdensome. And doesn’t love fullfill the law?

    3. Because God calls us to throw seed and go to bed. He does the watering and the growing. Wecare called to unlock the jail, He brings out who He chooses. Thats why Im here, throwing seed, unlocking jail cell doors.

       Reply

       1. He also asks you to workout your salvation, yet you ignore it.

          Reply

          1. CK, said ” He also says he wants you to work out your salvation.” Whats the rest of the verse say? For it is God who is at work in you for his good pleasure. You left out an important part dont you think. Paul said “for it is by the grace of God I am what I am” Yes we work out our salvation, but you think b that means we earn it. It doesnt. God justifies an ungodly man, who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly. To be saved CK, you have to repent from trusting in you love or works to be justified. God bless.

             Reply

             1. Let’s looks at at that verse.. We work on our salvation with God’s grace. Synergy!

                If God is doing it all then the verse makes no sense. He tells us to do something with his help.

                Please break that verse down for me using your interpretation. I really don’t see it.

                What does this mean? – Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

                What does this mean – for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

44. Tim said -Timothy F. Kauffman
    JANUARY 30, 2015 AT 9:11 AM
    CK,

    You wrote,

    “You claim the real presence heresy was full blown by 451 AD.”

    But what I said was the “Mass Sacrifice” heresy was “pretty widespread.” I did not say “the real presence” heresy was “full blown“:

    “By then, the idea of the Mass as a sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood was pretty widespread, so their split from Rome was late enough that the “real presence” you’re describing will not have been a point of division.”

    The reason this matters is that Roman Catholics don’t even know what Real Presence means, and yet with that grossly under-defined term they back-fill every Eucharistic reference in the Church Fathers with what Rome currently believes. That is why BOB can read consubstantiation into Gelasius even while you refuse to read transubstantiation out of him. Bob wrote:

    “What you are describing here with Gelasius is called consubstantiation–the substance of Christ WITH the substance of bread. In other words, the bread and wine never change, they remain 100% bread and wine. And they are presented with the Real Presence of Christ alongside, or on top of, or intermingled with, however you want to call it.”

    Try to peddle that at Catholic Answers, and they’ll call you a heretic. And Gelasius, too, if he really believed in consubstantiation. But SP some time ago told us that Bob is mistaken in his thinking, because Gelasius, when he says ‘substance’ and ‘nature,’ he means what Trent later defined as ‘species’ and ‘accidents.’ Of course he did. 😉 The Early Church always “meant” what Trent later held to be true. So when Gelasius says “yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in them,” what he meant was that the substance and nature of bread and wine do cease to be in them. And when Chrysostom said “the nature of bread remains in it” even after the words of consecration, what he meant was that the “nature of bread” does not remain in it. And when Augustine said John 6 is “figurative,” and that we are not to drink the blood that flowed from Jesus’ side, he meant it the way Trent and Paul VI did more than a thousand years later, which is to say, John 6 is not figurative, and we are to drink the blood that flowed from Jesus’ side.

    This is why it is so important to define terms. Bob’s defense of Gelasius is that “the bread and wine never change, they remain 100% bread and wine,” which is language that would never fly with Trent, CK, Jim, the Catechism or John Hardon and his more than 600 Jesuit priests who have been taught that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist, which is why we are told that we should pray to the Eucharist, and not just adore it. The Eucharist is where Jesus (allegedly) is physically.

    In other words, Bob’s attempt to defend Gelasius is to say that he was a heretic. As EWTN reminds us, at moment of consecration is supposed to be the moment “in which the bread ceases to be bread and the wine ceases to be wine.” They are changed and they are no longer bread and wine—the very thing Bob said Gelasius was not supporting.

    So CK, when you say, “Tim, that’s a interesting point. Now can we get back to the Church Fathers?,” it seems to me that you would very much like us to get back to discussing transubstantiation in the early Church before we get lost in what the words actually mean. But rushing in without a definition is precisely why Bob can read Gelasius and conclude that the medieval Church taught consubstantiation. You wanted early evidence for a rejection of Transubstantiation—well, Bob has provided it to you.

    So, CK, what do you mean by real presence? are you with Hardon who insisted that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist? Or are you with the Archbishop who denied His physical presence? Or are you with Gelasius and Bob on consubstantiation? You can’t just rush in an claim the victory on the “real presence,” if even Rome today still doesn’t have the words to explain what it means for Jesus to be really present.

    You continued,

    “I’m really interested in the writings before that time addressing, what anyone with your view, to be a heresy beyond proportions! So many Christians adoring bread!!!!”

    If you have evidence of people adoring the Eucharist prior to the 11th century, please provide it. The folks over at the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies are at this moment desperately searching for such evidence:

    “Whatever the solutions to these modern theological and liturgical issues, most scholars trace them back to medieval theology and liturgical practice. They all agree and repeatedly say that the practice of Eucharistic adoration goes back at least to the early thirteenth century certainly in the Lowlands and then somewhat later in the century in Rome and throughout western Christendom, where in 1264 the Feast of Corpus Christi was the first officially mandated feast for the universal church by Urban IV in his bull Transiturus. Also it was in that century that the doctrine or theology of transubstantiation was mandated in the Fourth Lateran Council to explain how the real presence came about. It was also in this century that St. Thomas Aquinas composed his magnificent Eucharistic hymns, the Tantum ergo sacramentum with its suggestive words “Therefore we, before him bending, this great Sacrament we revere,” and his O salutaris hostia with its equally suggestive words, “O saving Victim, opening wide the gate of heaven to man below.” Some scholars then push the issue of Eucharistic adoration back to the eleventh century with the controversy over the meaning of the Eucharist by Berengar of Tours, who argued against the “real presence” and was condemned and forced to retract his idea with a profession repeated not long ago by Pope Paul VI (as the successor to “our predecessor,” Gregory VII) in his Encyclical Mysterium fidei.7 The case of Berengar, who took his support in the writings of Ratramnus of Corbie (whom he called Bertramnus), then leads scholars to push the issue back to Carolingian times with the debates between Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus of Corbie over the meaning of the Eucharist, which even involved the intervention of the king, Charles the Bald, who after examining the positions of Radbertus and Ratramnus gave his “official” royal approval to Radbertus’s theory of the “real presence.”

    In the thirteenth century the doctrine of the “real presence” found in transubstantiation was reinforced visually in Eucharistic adoration. Could there have been something similar in the ninth century, in the Carolingian Age? It can be suggested that there likely was. Naturally, there was no doctrine of transubstantiation, and one immediately objects to the idea of Eucharistic adoration in the age of Charlemagne by pointing out that the term “adoratio” was condemned during the Iconoclastic controversy by Charlemagne through Theodulf of Orléans in the Libri Carolini (Opus Caroli regis contra synodum) and by numerous other court theologians.” (Roger E. Reynolds, Eucharistic Adoration in the Carolingian Era? Exposition of Christ in the Host)

    Reynold’s concluding words ought to carry some weight with you:

    “Eucharist adoration of the host in the thirteenth century and beyond was clearly not like that suggested by the illustrations of the host held in Christ’s hand in our manuscripts. The idea of transubstantiation had not yet been developed, and hosts of azymes and bread were still used in the ninth century and beyond. But add the theology “real presence” developed by Radbertus of Corbie and approved by Charles – something not present in the late eighth century during the Iconoclastic controversy – to the striking presence of the host in the Majestas pages and one can sense the first steps toward Eucharistic adoration developed in the high and later Middle Ages.”

    CK, if the theology of the “real presence” wasn’t even present in the late eighth century, what makes you think it was present in the 4th and 5th? Well, at least we have Hardon’s definitive defense of Eucharistic Adoration:

    “Certainly by the 800′s, the Blessed Sacrament was kept within the monastic church itself, close to the altar. … The practice of reserving the Eucharist in religious houses was so universal that there is no evidence to the contrary even before the year 1000.”

    You mean for 1,000 years, people stored bread in places?! Well that settles it! 😉

    Thanks,

    Tim

    Reply

    1. Tim I’m not trying to argue Rome’s explanation.

       There were many Christians who thought Jesus was God but couldn’t really explain it or had differnt explanations . The bottom line is that they thought he was God.

       With the real presence, the early Christians believed the Eucharist changed in some form or fashion. It was no longer just bread and wine. It changed. Some way some how it became the blood and body of Christ. They called it a mystery just like the Orthodox today.

       You reply to the Mass Sacrifice makes no sense. The Coptics adore the eucharist during the liturgy. You don’t adore something unless you think it is God. I’m still asking for proof of discourse from that time.

       If the Mass Sacrifice was something novel I’d like to see some early father discourse on that. I can’t find it wgich leads me to believe it was a normative means of Christian worship.

       Reply

       1. CK, you wrote,

          “With the real presence, the early Christians believed the Eucharist changed in some form or fashion. It was no longer just bread and wine. It changed. Some way some how it became the blood and body of Christ. They called it a mystery just like the Orthodox today.”

          But what does it mean?

          You can’t just leave it undefined and then make the claim that because early Christians believed the bread changed in some way, that they must have believed in your undefined term, and that it changed into God and that they must have believed in the physical, transubstantiated presence of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ without explaining what “real presence” means. That is a logical fallacy of asserting the consequent (If P, then Q; Q, therefore P). They way you are using the arguement is a classic case:

          If the Early Church believed in Transubstantiation, then they would have stated that the bread changed in some form or fashion;
          They believed it changed in some form or fashion, therefore they believed in Transubstantiation.

          You can’t make that claim (legitimately) without defining your terms. What does “Real Presence” mean? Do you believe in the physical presence, CK?

          Thanks,

          Tim

          Reply

          1. Forget real presence. Let me try to make it simple. The Fathers believed that the Eucharist was Jesus. They may have called it spiritual food (which it is), the risen body or whatever. What they didn’t believe is that once it was consecrated it was just bread and wine or a symbol for Christ. The bread and wine changed some how, some way into Christ.

             Do you agree or disagree?

             I’m not talking about what I believe as a Catholic. You know what I believe. The question is if I’m right and if not are you right? So let’s start with the Fathers.

             Reply

45. CK, you always want more proof. Tim has given you 7 thousands of volumes of proof, but you want more. And then when he gives you more, you’ll want more. I gave you two quotes from Augustine on the Eucharist that wasnt favorable to your position, and you me basically I dont like those, can you find me some others. You give us the run around. I actually think you enjoy it. You asked me why I waste so much time trying to convince you or Catholics. Because Im an idiot lol. I mean if there is a man that has provided more information than Tim has for you, I want to meet him. Amazing. God bless you. Your good at this. K

    Reply

    1. Kevin wrote:
       You asked me why I waste so much time trying to convince you or Catholics. Because Im an idiot lol.

       God’s fool…God’s devil…God’s church…God’s elect…God’s Kevin

       Reply

       1. Thanks bro, in a way all your own! K

          Reply

    2. So Austine settles everything? Can’t wait to see you praying for the dearly departed.

       And have quotes from Austing saying the opposite.

       Reply

46. TIM–
    You quoted: “We have Jesus Christ inside there in a way that He is not present anywhere else except in heaven. … There is no devotion that modern Popes have more emphasized than devotion to the Sacred Heart for the best reasons because the Eucharist is the Sacred Heart . . . making sure that we know His physical Heart is there. … But let’s make sure we know what the object of this faith is. It is not that Christ is present there as God. He was, on earth before the Incarnation. It is not even that the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood is there. It is that Christ is present with His physical properties.” (John Hardon, Devotion to the Real Presence and Growth in Sanctity)

    I personally think he is not teaching the doctrine properly. There is bad teaching in every school. I believe he is confused in physical and spiritual. Substance is spiritual. Accidents are physical. The substance cannot be confused with measurable physical properties. This is bad teaching. It is obvious that the physical properties are of bread and wine. One cannot discern the Real Presence by human senses, only by faith.

    Reply

    1. BOB, you wrote:
       One cannot discern the Real Presence by human senses, only by faith.

       Response:
       Who hopes for what he already sees ? Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

       Do you hope in the Real Presence when you discern it by faith ? I’m not asking if you hope in Jesus who’s present. I’m asking if you hope in the Real Presence as a “thing(s) hoped for”.

       Reply

47. KEVIN–
    You said: “The gospel is the power of God for salvation to all who believe. For the righteous shall live by faith. From predestination to glorification, its all of God. K”

    Yes. Sola Gracia. Sola Christi. Exactly. Do you just have faith or do you live by it?

    Reply

    1. CK, let me make an observation based on the subject matter with me and with Tim. You are fixated on the Eucharist and your works. Scripture says fix our eyes upon Jesus the author and perfector of our faith. Trust in Him alone. But this involves looking away from the Roman altar and outside of yourself to Christ for your righteouness. John says by our faith we overcome the world. Why? Because it apprehends Jesus Christ righteouness. Thats all you ever need. To be clothed in Christ is to have His white robe of righteouness. Abraham believed God and he was counted righteous. K

       Reply

       1. Yes I m fixated on the Eucharist. I am also interested in what the early Christians believed about the Eucharist. The more I learn the more fixated I am on Him.

          I am also fixated on cooperating with God’s grace. Not sure why you are fixated on not cooperating with His grace.

          Reply

          1. Fixation on the Roman death wafer has brought stigmata. Tim has an article on those who cant get enough of adoring the Eucharist. He warned Stellman and others if mt memory serves me right. Be warned. K

             Reply

          2. CK, you assume that we dont cooperate with God. It isnt the same as in RC theology. Our cooperation is inconsequential in our justification. So even though we cooperate with God, it isnt in the RC sense of acruing more infused grace, a soul substance that goes up and down with your cooperation. God gives us grace andcwe do. You do and God gives you grace. Wecarent justified by our sanctification, or anything wrought in us by the Spirit. You are. This goes to the RC sophistry of grace enhancing nature. In Reformed theology grace redeems nature or renews it, not elevates it so we glow. We dont have saints with halos. Grace isnt compatible with fallen human nature. It comes from above a supernatural work of the Spirit. It redeems us. Hope this helps. K

             Reply

48. CK, I can make it easy for you. Christ is in Christians and not in the bread. And for Catholics Christ is in the bread and not in them. Sound about righyt. God bless. K

    Reply

    1. Hey Hall Monitor Walt! Does this sound like one is really trying to understand the issue? 🙂

       Reply

       1. CK, you asked me what that verse is refering too. But you forgot an impoertant part of the verse. We are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work in us for his good pleasure. I simply said there would be nothing to work out without God working in us. IOW works are God’s work of grace in us. However those Spirit enabled works have no ground in our justification. Furthermore, we can speak of sanctification as forensic in the sense that Christ’ imputed righteouness covers any deficiency in our works. John says in verse 13 ” who were born, not of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Rengeneration as well as every part ofvsalvation is monergistic, a work of God. We are just living out the miracle. God will reward our works someday, but not in terms of holiness. We are as holy as we will ever be in the eyes of God, because when He looks at us He sees Christ. So our sanctification can b e seen as God’s working his purpose in our life. I hope this helps. K

          Reply

49. CK, you wrote:

    ”

    Let’s looks at at that verse.. We work on our salvation with God’s grace. Synergy!

    If God is doing it all then the verse makes no sense. He tells us to do something with his help.

    Please break that verse down for me using your interpretation. I really don’t see it.

    What does this mean? – Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

    What does this mean – for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.”

    Are you really interested to learn this issue? Or are you really just putting out a challenge that is not really that important to you?

    Reply

    1. Walt – it is important and challenges are flying around all over the place here. I’m not sure what your issue is.

       I see a verse that makes no sense to me when it’s interpreted the way Kevin and maybe you interpret it. I try to be very specific with Kevin otherwise his answer will consist of Mary worship, pope is the antichrist, how I’m really BOB or Debbie and a bunch of other stuff that has nothing to do with the topic.

       And who here is really trying to understand the issue? Feel free to name names.

       I’m really trying to understand how you can believe in Irresistible grace when there are so many passages in the bible that don’t fit with that belief.

       Reply

       1. CK, you wrote:

          “I’m really trying to understand how you can believe in Irresistible grace when there are so many passages in the bible that don’t fit with that belief.”

          Fair enough. It is not an easy doctrine as you have demonstrated debating Kevin. There are a couple things that I would suggest you to consider in irresistible grace.

          First, let’s consider the Nature of Justification between Rome (Catholic teaching) and Westminster (Reformed teaching).

          Let me know firstly if you believe the comparison below is accurate as both are quoted from source documents.

          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] 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).

          Secondly, do you agree with the ORDER of salvation as explained here in ordo solutis when you see the Calvinist (reformed) view in comparison to the Catholic view?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo_salutis

          If we can at least reach an agreement that the Nature of Justification differs between us in that a judicial act “imputes” the righteousness of Christ (reformed position) and that a moral transformation takes place where god “subjectively cleanses” the heart by blending justification and sanctification together (Catholic view).

          You can see specifically how this is accomplished in both theories of doctrine by the order of salvation between the Calvinist and Catholic views above.

          The issue of contradiction of Scripture will be dealt with later if we can at least agree to these principle differences between us on soteriology.

          Reply

50. CK, if God wssnt already at work in us there would be nothing to work out. This is monergism. Paul says in Romans 9, not because of works but Him who calls. K

    Reply

    1. Kevin I agree with your first sentence.

       Funny how you go to Romans So you don’t have to address the specific verse I asked about.

       Based on your interpretation Paul is contradicting himself.

       Work out your salvation in fear and trembling because you can’t work out your salvation but only Him who calls. Makes no sense.

       Reply

       1. CK, Romans 5: 1 says we have peace with God,, not a cease fire. You must understand no Reformed Christian ever says that those who are justified by faith alone dont receive the other graces of God such as love. We just arent justified by love in some final justification that is a result of our sanctification. Paul wrote to the Galatians to tell those trying to undermine the doctrine of jbfa that if you add one work, just one, you change the gospel, and no one can besaved by that gospel. It will only sever them from Christ and fall them from grace. GLatians 5:1-4. Rome’s gospel is

          Reply

          1. A gospel that falls under the condemnation of Galatians 1:9 is Rome’s. I hope you will study Galatians and understand this. Paul was a monergist ” if it is by grace, it is no longer be works, or grace is no longer grace. RC gospel isnt close to being grace. K

             Reply

51. Tim, do you have Calvin’s view of the supper, or more Zwinglian? Thanks K

    Reply

52. ERIC W.–
    You said: “Who hopes for what he already sees ? Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
    Do you hope in the Real Presence when you discern it by faith ? I’m not asking if you hope in Jesus who’s present. I’m asking if you hope in the Real Presence as a “thing(s) hoped for”.

    I don’t quite understand your redundancy. And, you kinda misquoted Hebrews:
    Heb 11:1 ff Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks. By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, “and was not found, because God had taken him”; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.”

    In faith we celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist (substance of our hope) and believe in the Real Presence (evidence of things not seen).
    In our faith, we believe that He is God(Real Presence), and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him in sacrament(substance of our hope). Living faith.
    The rest of chapter 11 of Hebrews gives example after example of people acting in faith–true, living faith.

    Reply

    1. BOB do you have a blog?

       I like how you break things down to bite size morsels. Concise and to the point.

       Reply

       1. Nope. I’m just a troll. 😉

          Reply

    2. BOB, you wrote:
       I don’t quite understand your redundancy. And, you kinda misquoted Hebrews:

       Response:
       I quoted Heb.11:1 from a translation. How can a quote be a misquote ? You go on to write a different, but accepted, translation. I asked with no redundancy. I will try harder. Is the Real Presence a “thing hoped for” in the sense of Heb.11:1 ?
       ————————
       You came close to the answer I wanted:

       In faith we celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist (substance of our hope) and believe in the Real Presence (evidence of things not seen).

       But you made the mistake I wanted you to avoid. I wrote:
       I’m not asking if you hope in Jesus who’s present.

       That’s the same as your the “sacrament of Eucharist” (substance of our hope)
       ———————
       How can you hope in something you have ? You have the Real Presence. You can’t have the second part of the verse (Heb.11:1) if the first part is not a “thing(s) hoped for”.

       Reply

       1. Eric W said ” How can you hope for something you have” Bingo! The Catholic church is the historical flesh of Christ, the Eucharist, the Pope, as the grace oozes down the heiarchial tower through the acts of the church. Its a faulty view of the Trinity. We are incorporated into the body of Christ only through the Spirit. The Spirit delivers all the victory spoils of Christ. We are said to be complete in Christ having all things pertaining to life and Godliness. We partake in the divine nature by fellowship with Christ through his Spirit, and scripture says we lack nothing. So when Rome says they have a fuller communion its a lie, there is nothing fuller than being complete in Christ. The Mass is unbelief and is the greatest attack on the sufficiency of Christ there ever was. It is flat out the denial of the completeness in Christ. We have ALL things we need by faith. K

          Reply

    3. Bob said ” in our faith we celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist ( substance of our hope)” Maria said it right she refuses to worship a sacrament or a substance, but Christ whonis at tge right hand of the father. You continued ” inour faith we believe that He is God ( real presence) ” We know thats what Tim has been saying for along time, you believe the Jesus wafer is God. You bow and adore bread. ThecPriest says hocus pocus and makes the dough God before your eyes, and you fall andcworship it, follow it around in the streets, adore it in chapels, smell the adoring chapell, keep it in a tabernacle. Instead of worshiping the true God thru Christ who is in heaven in Spirit and truth by faith alone, you bow your knee to a piece of bread as a work to merit increase in grace. Your fixated and mesmerized by your bread God in unbelief. You are steeped in idolatry. Godcwill not be worshiped in any graven image. He will only be worshiped in Spirit and truth thru faith alone. Zwingli ripped out the altar and returned us to the Lord’s table, and erased the sacrilidge of the Roman mass forever. God will only be worshiped in an acceptable way. K

       Reply

       1. Whatever. I know that you are just spouting your Kevinism. It’s what you do best.

          Reply

53. Eric W–
    You said: “I quoted Heb.11:1 from a translation. How can a quote be a misquote ? You go on to write a different, but accepted, translation.”

    I stand corrected.

    “In faith we celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist (substance of our hope) and believe in the Real Presence (evidence of things not seen).”

    You also said: “But you made the mistake I wanted you to avoid. I wrote:
    I’m not asking if you hope in Jesus who’s present.
    That’s the same as your the “sacrament of Eucharist” (substance of our hope)
    ———————
    How can you hope in something you have ? You have the Real Presence. You can’t have the second part of the verse (Heb.11:1) if the first part is not a “thing(s) hoped for”.

    Why are you saying what I said inversely?
    Let’s use a different translation:
    Heb 11:1 Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see.
    That is the nature of the sacrament. Our faith gives us the confidence that when we celebrate the Eucharist, we are assured that, even though we cannot see Him, He is really present in the elements.
    And my hope is to one day actually see how that happens.

    Reply

    1. BOB, you wrote:
       That is the nature of the sacrament. Our faith gives us the confidence that when we celebrate the Eucharist, we are assured that, even though we cannot see Him, He is really present in the elements.
       And my hope is to one day actually see how that happens.

       Response:
       What you hope to see one day is here in a sacramental presence. Neither hope, nor faith, are part of the nature of the sacrament. The one who believes and hopes is the same as the one who doesn’t believe or hopes. They both receive the Real Presence. Each have Jesus. The RP is not a thing hoped for.

       To say something like “you hope to see” is a statement about you and not the RP. It’s the RP then, now and later. If faith is the confidence of the things hoped for, then the RP has nothing to do with this. Faith is confidence of the things hoped for, then BOB will see the RP one day. The “faith or believe” required from RP teachers is not Heb.11:1.

       Reply

54. Bob said ” and my hope is to one days see how that happens” Let me get this straight, your hope someday is to see Jesus turn into a wafer? Are you one of thosecRC’s who think He is coming back as a giant Eucharist? K

    Reply

55. Kevin’s FUNNY!!

    Reply
56. Pingback: Their Praise was their Sacrifice (part 7) | Out of His Mouth

57. Bob, you wrote:

    “In faith we celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist (substance of our hope) and believe in the Real Presence (evidence of things not seen).

    In our faith, we believe that He is God(Real Presence), and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him in sacrament(substance of our hope). Living faith.

    The rest of chapter 11 of Hebrews gives example after example of people acting in faith–true, living faith.”

    Bob, I’m not sure how many times you have studied the Bible, or read it, but in my own study I don’t see any of this taught. Tim is trying to argue in his blog it was not taught by the early and primitive church either. I know you don’t agree that the early church fathers did not teach your excellent summary of your views above, but firmly believe that not only the bible teaches your views and that Rome and John Wesley teaches your views, but also the early Church fathers all taught your views. I’m I right in this reasonable conclusion?

    If your firm in your belief in what you write above, and believe you have all the support you need from scripture, Rome, Wesley, the Church Fathers, the Apostolic tradition outside the Scriptures, etc., I suspect you are standing firmly on the rock of true faith…as whatever is not of faith is sin (Rom.14:23).

    Reply

58. CK,

    While there could be a lot of conflicting passages to this verse, let me know what you think this verse means:

    “And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ***ordained to eternal life believed.***” (Acts 13:48)

    I’ve highlighted what I think is an important principle in this verse that may conflict a lot of bible passages if your presupposition sees it in the sense of “many who believed and worked out there salvation in fear and trembling were ordained to eternal life”, for example.

    I’ll wait your thoughts. If we can get our minds around how this verse differs between us, we can then see if other passages conflict with it, or are built upon this principle.

    It is not easy to see. Lord knows I fought this in my own life for years until one day it made perfect sense to me. I’m not saying it will or should make sense to you in the way it does to me, but I’m saying there is a difference how people read this verse and interpret it with their own presupposition (using other verses) compared to how Scripture interprets Scripture using the literal sense, or intended meaning of the author Himself.

    Reply
59. Pingback: Their Praise was their Sacrifice (part 8) | Out of His Mouth