Posted on 10/16/2014 10:51:43 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
You are correct, on the point of the Church being the Temple of the Holy Spirit, Catholic Doctrine and Evangelical Protestant Doctrine agree. If that was the point you were making, and nothing else, then it was incorrect for someone to call you out on that point.
Mass still takes place at the Sistine Chapel. How often I do not know.
In the meantime -- how many thousand people a day trudge through the place?
And what of the scriptures I just outlined?
Are those negated due to the mass, or the presence of a consecrated wafer?
Would the answer to what Stephen was saying to the priests, according to the prophet (before they stoned him to death Acts 7:54-60), ;
“Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool.
Where then is a house you could build for Me?
And where is a place that [a]I may rest?
2 “For My hand made all these things,
Thus all these things came into being,” declares the Lord.
“But to this one I will look,
To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.
be --- the Sistine Chapel...even when whichever monstrance a consecrated waver is placed within -- is empty, and in some cupboard?
John Jewel (lived 1522-1571) Anglican bishop of Salisbury;
We affirm that bread and wine are holy and heavenly mysteries of the body and blood of Christ, and that by them Christ Himself, being the true bread of eternal life, is so presently given unto us as that by faith we verily receive his body and his blood. (Apology II.15).In the Lord’s Supper there is truly given unto the believing the body and blood of the Lord, the flesh of the Son of God, which quickeneth our souls, the meat that cometh from above, the food of immortality, grace, truth, and life; and the Supper to be the communion of the body and blood of Christ, by partaking whereof we be revived, we be strengthened, and be fed unto immortality, and whereby we are joined, united, and incorporate unto Christ, that we may abide in him, and he in us. (Apology II)
In speaking thus, we mean not to abase the Lord’s Supper, that it is but a cold ceremony only, and nothing to be wrought therein (as many falsely slander us we teach). For we affirm, that Christ doth truly and presently give his own self in his sacraments; in Baptism, that we may put him on; and in his Supper, that we may eat him by faith and spirit, and may have everlasting life by his cross and blood. And we say not, this is done slightly and coldly, but effectually and truly. For although we do not touch the body of Christ with teeth and mouth, yet we hold him fast, and eat him by faith, by understanding, and by the Spirit. And it is no vain faith which doth comprehend Christ: and that is not received with cold devotion, that is received with understanding, with faith, and with spirit. For Christ Himself altogether is so offered and given us in these mysteries, that we may certainly know we be flesh of His flesh, and bone of His bones; and that Christ “continueth in us, and we in Him.” And therefore in celebrating these mysteries, the people are to good purpose exhorted before they come to receive the Holy Communion, to lift up their hearts, and to direct their minds to heavenward: because he is there, by whom we must be full fed, and live. (Apology II.15).
CTrent -- What is this Church you speak of?
Define that.
Blue Dragon:
I am not looking into a Debate, obviously I believe it is the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, that is the fullness of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit are present in her.
You obviously have a different view. I think we can end it right here and leave it at that.
You "believe" it is...
And that is where the Holy Spirit resides?
And this "fullness" -- how can it be less full elsewhere, (that is, when it is acknowledged to be elsewhere other than the RomanCatholic Church any at all) when the cup flows over?
Full is full.
16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
That is very much the only way the Temple of the Holy Spirit was spoken of in the New Testament, by which I mean it was rather an individual thing, although one effected by those of the Church (the Priesthood of all believers) collectively assembled together. NOT -- the other way around, as if it would be safe in later times to skip over the "being born of both the spirit and the waters" -- like --- assuming this spiritual rebirth would be effectively accomplished by sacramental rites of the Church (any ekklesia) alone, simply by the sprinkling of infants, and church ceremony of that sort. SEE -- the baptism of John the Baptist for a CLUE!
To be collectively present within and amid any congregation or ekklesia, then it must be within individuals unless one figures on being a latter-day Caiaphas, sitting upon seat of Moses (now transformed into seat 'of Peter'?) --- possibly prophesying, but having that come from their own mouths when the actual meanings of the words be significantly different then initially intended by the one who speaks the words!
If the Spirit not be present within individual persons, alive & dwelling within those whom He calls and sends to even His self -- in the person of the Holy Ghost -- then it will not be present within ANY ecclesiastical body which lacks that same condition among it's membership.
John 3:5.
Read it. If you not know it -- go now and find it, never stop until one does...
WHO was it that is attributed to have been speaking, there? I trust the Gospel of John (among all the rest).
So, the "One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" is the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit, instead...?
Really?
There is no "instead". Correct? Not unless the Spirit be present and alive within the membership can the spirit be present and alive within the Church.
Now it's my turn to say "I think we can end it right here and leave it at that."
“That is very much the only way the Temple of the Holy Spirit was spoken of in the New Testament, by which I mean it was rather an individual thing, although one effected by those of the Church (the Priesthood of all believers) collectively assembled together.”
I have to disagree. Take, for example, this reference in 1 Peter 2:
“4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”
Though it doesn’t specifically mention the word “temple”, it is clear, by reference to the “stone the builders rejected” and the offering of sacrifices, that the “spiritual house” referred to must be a temple of the Lord. This house is built of “ourselves” in the plural, not individually. You cannot build a building with a single stone, so any other reading is not sensible.
This reference, from Ephesians 2, makes the point even clearer:
“19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”
These verses state clearly that all believers together are built, with Christ as the cornerstone, into a holy temple. However, the definite pronoun (the) is not used, but instead “a holy temple” is specified, which does not exclude the idea that each individual is also a holy temple, due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Huh? It seems you may not have understood what you quoted from myself. Perhaps that was less than clear -- although I did mention the priesthood of all believers being collectively assembled together...which seems to be the portion you are focusing upon as most primarily when speaking further of this 'spiritual house' type of aspect...
Which leaves me wondering what you could be disagreeing about.
You must have skipped over all the rest of the explanation?
Without the spirit being within in the "living stones" themselves, there can be no spiritual house.
Is the Spirit within the people who compose the Church -- or is the Spirit somehow otherwise existent 'in' the Church?
Even coming from on high -- the spirit of the Lord does not dwell in temples made of hands, but within persons.
One simply must be born of the spirit. Nicodemus said "how can one be born again...which showed what he himself thought Jesus meant, though if one prefers to say 'born from above", then ok, fine.
Do you realize that I intended my last note to be directed to the other party -- including yourself to be addressed for reason you were previously of the conversation?
What again of where the Spirit dwells?
How could that ever be if not dwelling within the people themselves?
One simply must be born of the spirit and the waters. Or else -- one is taking up space, or sleeping in a garage but not being transformed into a car.
Just being a "member" and present in some assembly with others -- is not enough.
Along lines of agreement for what you say--
Being too far distant and going solo -- is extremely risky. The lone sheep can be picked off fairly easily.
Neglect not the assembling of yourselves? That's simple enough.
“It seems you may not have understood what you quoted from myself. Perhaps that was less than clear — although I did mention the priesthood of all believers being collectively assembled together...which seems to be the portion you are focusing upon as most primarily when speaking further of this ‘spiritual house’ type of aspect...”
I’m disagreeing with your statement that the temple is only ever described in the NT in terms of individuals, as it is actually described otherwise in some verses.
“Is the Spirit within the people who compose the Church — or is the Spirit somehow otherwise existent ‘in’ the Church?”
I think, in actuality, there is no “or” there. You can’t have a church without people, and you can’t build a temple with one stone.
Obviously, if the individuals composing the church don’t have the Holy Spirit within them, then there is no spiritual unity, and therefore it is no church at all. However, what you seem to be saying is that the Spirit dwells only within individuals, and only in the church itself in the sense that it indwells all the members composing the church. Yet, the verses I posted demonstrate that the Spirit indwells the church built collectively of the individuals, and that we are built together into a fitting temple for the Spirit.
“Even coming from on high — the spirit of the Lord does not dwell in temples made of hands, but within persons.”
In the past, the Lord did dwell in temples made of hands of course. Not in this era though. However, now He dwells in a temple, made by the hand of God, which is the church, and also in the individual members of that church.
“How could that ever be if not dwelling within the people themselves?”
It cannot. However, that does not prove the separate contention, that the Lord doesn’t also dwell within the church. To do that, you would have to demonstrate it was an either/or proposition, which I don’t believe you have done.
“Just being a “member” and present in some assembly with others — is not enough.”
Oh, I agree, and just because I disagree with you on one point, doesn’t mean I endorse the Catholic position, that the Spirit, or grace, flows from their church down to the members. However, even the Catholic position does not hold that any old member is automatically given grace and salvation, simply by signing up for their particular denomination. I think there is an error in their position, just not the particular one that you are trying to ascribe.
That's close, and you do seem to agree with that, although the Holy Spirit is not dependent upon ourselves at the same time. He exists outside of ourselves also, all the while...
Individuals, and collectively also. I covered mention of that twice now.
Nor did I say that the Spirit of the Lord lacks His own continual self identification.
But without the persons -- then where is the Church? One of the initial questions was "what is the Church".
Let me put it this way -- Christ did not die on the cross to redeem a set of teachings. He died in our place.
The Church has been described as the bride of Christ. His Bride is not made of collection of centuries worth of doctrine, sayings and dogma.
Fitting house -- not exactly "temple" for that word was not used.
The veil in the Temple at Jerusalem was rent(torn/split) from top to bottom.
No more were the inner workings hidden by densely layered earthly veil, approachable only by way of outwards ritual cleansing, and ceremony in which sacrificial offerings were to be placed upon the altar.
What did the verses (and book chapters those came from) which I cited previously say would be the sacrifice?
The answer for that is the key to resolving what was to compose the sacrificial offerings made by the 'well fitted house' in the verses which you yourself cited.
Can you see it now?
Again, you should have posted what you posted to yourself. I thought I was pretty clear in my last post on my position.
Good day
No, I shouldn't have. But being that you eventually came to agreement of a sorts with the one here who goes by the name Boogieman, then speaking of what "should have" been done, then you should have corrected this;
And this #28
But yourself being clear on what you said in answer to questions posed by myself to you, later?
Not really.
Only clear to me that you didn't want to talk about the ramifications of what else has been said on this thread, for there seems to be those who believe the Holy Spirit dwells not just within members and persons, but in church buildings too!
So what is this Church you speak of? Does it, for this context, as "Temple of the Holy Spirit" as it has been put in the CCC, include buildings also?
Yes or No.
To the Boogieman (lol) I should present some extent of mea culpa, for he was right enough in correcting me for the way I used the word only in my own comment #106 but I do beg pardon for further contending the point.
It is the members of the Church who in the NT texts were called the temple of the Holy Spirit.
Yet too, Boogieman was justified in pointing out to me
“4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”
Even there, if one desires to see that as "temple" for reason of the building up of spiritual house which the members are living stones of, that still falls woefully short of endorsement for making capital "T" temples of the Holy Spirit residing in earthly buildings.
It would serve us all better to recall that the persons themselves were referred to as temple of the Holy Spirit.
Fitted together, those make "spiritual house".
The "spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" can include sacrifices of praise, prayer and supplication.
For some, the sacrifices have included even their own bodies crucified.
What this all does not include is making church facilities and buildings becoming dwelling place of the Most High, for Heaven is His throne, and the earth His footstool, Acts 7:54-60, Isaiah 66:1-2.
Thanks for the post, have a good day
Whatever.
Go back to sleep.
Might as well being that the 'ol eyes are slammed shut.
Blue Dragon:
thanks for the post, have a great rest of your Sunday.
This could be a terrible slippery slope. (someone’s gotta’ state the obvious)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.