Posted on 10/27/2014 5:43:10 AM PDT by Gamecock
The Reformers finally stopped letting others tell them what the Bible says, and started reading it for themselves.
Saying 5 “Hail Marys” is violative of Scripture:
Mat 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Giving a man the honorary title of “Father” is violative of Scripture:
Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Thinking that works are what saves us is violative of Scripture. Works are the evidence of faith, not the cause of faith:
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
God is in Three Persons, not four:
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
But the Apostles did not follow Scripture when they ate Christ's Body and drank His Blood.
Nor did they follow Scripture when they baptized in the Name of the Trinity.
The Apostles acted on Christ's words - not on Scripture - and they enacted the sacraments that Christ gave us.
We have these sacraments from Christ, who passed them to us through the Apostles. Or did these sacraments only become efficacious after they had found their way into print?
“So you admit that when the Apostles ate and drank Christ’s Body and Blood, and baptized in the name of the Trinity, they were not following scripture?”
I believe the second and disbelieve the first (as you understand it today).
“I repeat: how can scripture be the source of authority when the early Church ate Christ’s Body, drank Christ’s Blood and baptized in the Name of the Trinity - without a single word of scripture to authorize their actions?”
They had The Word of God in their physical presence.
“Where in the Old Testament does Christ command us to Eat His Body and Drink His Blood?”
He prohibits eating or drinking blood.
“Where in the Old Testament are we commanded to Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?”
You do realize this is a very, very weak argument that has nothing to do with the authority of Scripture’s written to Christians in the NT??
“The early Church did these things - and they did not refer to Scripture when doing them. They had them from the Apostles - who had them from Christ.”
Yes, Christ the Cornerstone and the Apostles as the foundation. Those days are gone. We now have God’s inspired Word, which is sufficient for salvation, maturity and all the Christian needs.
Your argument remains not only weak, but ignores the authority of God’s revelation. Why?? Are you living in 30 ad??
CB, you’re posting to the wrong guy... But nice to hear from you as always.
“Explain to me why Christ would break the law against eating blood and have His apostles do the same.”
I don’t believe He spoke literally. It is up to you to explain why God incarnate would break His own command, if you believe it was literal.
Certainly not if you think they ate the real flesh and blood. If you think they did would you explain why Jesus would break the law against eating blood and also cause His apostles to do so?
Ok, I'll give it a shot.
The Mosaic Law forbade unclean foods.
But Christ's Body and Blood is not an unclean food.
Christ is both God and Man. He is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. When we eat His Body and drink His Blood we feast upon the living God Himself.
God is not to be likened to some ritually unclean meat. Being nourished by and upon God Himself is neither unclean nor evil.
Think of a baby with his mother. Is a baby nourished at the breast unclean, because he eats and drinks of his own mother? We wouldn't equate breast-feeding with cannibalism or ritual uncleaness - why then would anyone condemn God's gift of Himself as unclean?
Finally and most importantly - God commands us to eat of Him.
Christ the Son of God instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist - the Bread and Wine becoming His Body and Blood - at the Last Supper.
Just to remind the thread about the institution of the Eucharist, and to show its provenance in the early Church.
From Luke:
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."
If any corroborating evidence were needed, St Paul speaks about the Eucharist in Corinthians.
And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
Which I quote at length because it shows that the Eucharist was celebrated in the extremely early Church.
In summary: Christ commanded us to eat His Body and drink His Blood: He also commanded us to re-enact the Eucharist.
Let us do as He commanded - not take refuge in a misapplied nostrum of the Mosaic Law.
When Jesus speaks of eating his body and drinking his blood in the wilderness he is alluding to the provision of manna in the time of Moses. He is telling them he is the fulfillment of the manna...he is sufficient.
When He speaks of it at the Last Supper he is telling the disciples He is the fulfillment of the Passover Lamb.
Both are allusions to Scripture which was widely read at the time..
“Opportunities for learning were increasing. Knowledge was multiplying. Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press (1454) had vastly improved the dissemination of ideas.”
I wonder how many years or decades it took before Bibles were mass produced in their entirety by that newfangled contraption of the printing press, giving the illiterate masses Sola Scriptura. Also have to wonder who was tasked to initially ‘edit’ those prints. Johannes Gutenberg, BTW, was a Catholic. (Disclaimer: I’m not much of a historian)
Um...duh! I totally missed that you were posting a quote to respond to. My bad. I should have known too. Off to get more coffee.
So - you admit that Sola Scriptura only makes sense if you ignore Christ being the cornerstone and the Apostles as the foundation?
Either authority is Sola Scriptura or it isn't. If it wasn't the case in 30 AD, why would it be true in 2030 AD?
The Apostles and those they taught wrote the New Testament. They wrote and ratified Scripture. They also refused to ratify fake, gnostic pieces of 'scripture'. And they necessarily did this on the authority given them by Christ.
How then could scripture be the source of their authority? And if it wasn't - then Sola Scriptura cannot be true.
Blood was NOT included as an unclean food. The apostles in Acts 15 reinforced the prohibition of blood. It would have highly hypocritical had they thought they were literally eating the real physical blood.
>>Finally and most importantly - God commands us to eat of Him.<<
Ezekiel was also told to "eat the scroll".
Ezekiel 3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel.
I suppose you think he actually ate the papyrus?
Thanks for an interesting article. As feared before I looked down the comments, the infighting begins. The two sides gutting each other as the mohammedans take over Europe and then North America.
No. Absolutely not. Let us review what He said.
Christ said this to the disciples:
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
And the Jews argued among themselves saying:
“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Then Jesus said to them
Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.
On hearing it, many of his disciples said,
This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them,
Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words that I have spoken unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life
I repeat: Christ backs up His words by saying that they are Spirit and they are Life.
At this point his audience could only have understood that Christ was standing behind his earlier words. Jesus made no changes to His words, no clarification that He was speaking in metaphor - for example: merely making a cryptic allusion to the manna in the desert. None of that. He meant what He said.
And at this point many of them left Him.
They left Him, unable to believe His words. And Christ watched them go. Why would He do that, if his plainly spoken words were somehow meant to be taken allegorically? Why didn't he explain the mistake they were making?
Because He meant what He said. It is a hard teaching. But it is Christ who says it.
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you
Jesus was comparing Himself with the manna in the wilderness. He is the true bread that came down from Heaven...not the manna.
Point is...he uses Old Testament scripture to make His point.
“So - you admit that Sola Scriptura only makes sense if you ignore Christ being the cornerstone and the Apostles as the foundation?”
No. That is exactly what I am not saying.
“Either authority is Sola Scriptura or it isn’t.”
Today it is.
“If it wasn’t the case in 30 AD, why would it be true in 2030 AD?”
You appear to not be picking up on the conversation we’ve shared so far. Implicit in your argument is the difference between the physical presence of Christ with His Apostles and the Body of Truth He and they left the Church. It also appears your post continues to ignore that Scripture itself declares it is sufficient for Salvation, maturity, etc.
There are no Apostles on the earth today.
“The Apostles and those they taught wrote the New Testament.”
The Apostles were moved by the Holy Spirit to write.
“They wrote and ratified Scripture.”
Very little ratification by an Apostle. Much not for hundreds of years by those who followed.
“They also refused to ratify fake, gnostic pieces of ‘scripture’.”
Yes, breaking with Rome to remove some of that from the canon.
“And they necessarily did this on the authority given them by Christ.”
No, they did not.
“How then could scripture be the source of their authority?”
Christ, through His Word is the source of authority for the Church today.
“And if it wasn’t - then Sola Scriptura cannot be true.”
If your argument wasn’t false and if it didn’t use logical fallacy, I would agree. Since it does both, I cannot agree.
After all, if we read the next sentence, it says:
So I took the small scroll from the angel's hand and ate it. It was as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, it turned bitter in my stomach.
Don't see any mention of it being made of papyrus.
Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
God gave the Apostles the power to appoint successors: to establish the Apostolic succession. Every Bishop is a direct successor to the original Apostles. The world is full of Apostles.
LOL! So to remain consistent you must also think words are tasty also?
Jeremiah 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.
Same Hebrew word used here.
Deuteronomy 32:42 I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall eat flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.
Makes ya wonder what kind of sword that is for sure.
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.