Posted on 06/21/2006 5:15:34 AM PDT by MountainMenace
COLUMBUS, OHIO (6/20/06)-The House of Deputies of the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church today overwhelmingly refused to even consider a resolution that affirmed Jesus Christ as the "only name by which any person may be saved."
(Excerpt) Read more at virtueonline.org ...
Where have I insulted you?
read your own posts from the start.
You assume that He could not have been linking the two? The words "This is my body" mean something different than "This symbolicly represents my body."
Not if that is what Christ did, and if that is what He tasked the Apostles with doing.
He said "do this in MEMORY of Me", not do this and then claim you have turned this peice of bread into Me, so others may receive me through this coverted bread.
He said do "this." That's what we do and the earliest records of the Church in history reflect that the earliest Christians understood "this" to be more than a symbol.
We do what Jesus did and what He told us to do. It's really that simple.
If you actually read the New Testament, you'll see Jesus uses symbolism and parables a lot and it would not make sense for Him to do this often, except for this one occasion and then not fully explain it
Again, it is a fallacy to assume that because Jesus spoke in parables and symbols that nothing He said was meant to be taken any other way. You don't really believe that, do you? Jesus spoke the plain truth many times.
As for your suggestion that He did not explain it, that is unfounded as well. Jesus gave the Bread of Life discourse and painfully explained that He was truly flesh to eat. People walked away from Him that day and He did not correct them, calling them back that it was a big misunderstanding, that He was talking in symbols.
The Apostles stuck with Him in faith, and at the Last Supper saw how He was to make this so. And after the Resurrection, to suggest that Jesus didn't explain anything to His followers is ridiculous.
SD
You can't point to anything? Did my use of the word "ignorance" bother you? I meant it not as an insult, but in the true sense of the word. You don't know what you are talking about. That's ignorance. It's curable.
I'm sorry if you take offense to that.
SD
The key to understanding the phrase "do this in memory of me," is to consider the Jewish understanding of the Seder meal. Jews (like Christ was) believe that the Passover is not simply remembered at the Seder meal, but is actually made present. Similarly, the Crucifixion is made present in the Eucharist or "Lord's Supper," not simply remembered.
This is why Paul can say:
1 Corinthians 1123For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
Your flippant and trite description of the RCC shows you know little to nothing of the roots of the faith founded by Christ Jesus. Get it through your head, Christ is not your shrink, He is God. He set some rules. Rules that are not to be interpreted however you see fit. If that were the case, then what is the point at all? Give this a read before you presume to belittle the Church founded by Christ for your "buddy Jesus" you seem to be so fond of.
Forgot the link. Here you go: http://www.drbo.org/church.htm
those who have not known Jesus can still be saved
Then why did Christ create what He Himself called the "church?"
Are you saying that Pope Benedict is Peter's equal?
"Not being a Christian explains your idea that there are many paths to God. There is only (one) way. If you don't know that by now there is only the hope that you will wake up and relearn "what the requirement are for redemption" and "who" God accepts."
I'll pray for the God of my understanding to soften your heart.
Don't underestimate the creativity of the interior decorators who are taking over TEC(The Episcopal Church, their new official name). Add some ferns, a gourmet kitchen, a few massage tables and some hot tubs, and you have a very toney urban 'members only' bath-house.
Somebody has lost their mind.
Obviously the teachings of the Bible mean nothing to these people.
Luther added the word "alone" and challenged anyone to go against him. Faith "alone" is not true to the original texts.
Wouldn't want to be them. Rather helps a future anti-Christ out, though.
Yes, that is an accurate statement of our two beliefs.
Which is why I asked originally if we were saved because of our knowledge of Christ, or because of the actions of Christ.
Without Jesus you cannot be saved because if your scenario were correct for the Aborigine then why not the same for everyone, then why did Jesus come and die why didn't Father let that cup pass from him if there were another way to be saved?.that is why I say that the Holy Spirit would cause events to happen that would lead a person a Aborigine in this case to a saving knowledge of Jesus.
Well, I think if, as we said, someone was "prompted by God to believe" and "open to the leading of the Holy Spirit" that this person has only been able to do this because of Jesus and His work on the Cross. Whether he knows this or not.
Jesus' sacrifice made it possible for men to be saved. We all agree on that. If Jesus didn't die, the Aborigine or the American could not be saved. It's the necessary thing.
The question is how this salvation comes about. Is it because we understand something, or is it because God selects us and moves us?
Another thing I think you are missing is that with knowledge of Christ we are in a much more favorable position than the bushman is. No one is suggesting that all people in all places are automatically saved and that Jesus was unnecessary.
The question is, can God save someone who is ignorant of Jesus? I don't see why He can not. The salvation is made possible through Jesus and through the gift of grace His Sacrifice made possible. And through the Holy Spirit Jesus sent.
Would I rather be a Christian living with access to the teachings of Jesus and the Bible and the sacraments?
You bet.
Would it bother me if God, for His own purposes, place the Holy Spirit in a hopelessly ignorant Aborigine and guides that soul to salvation?
Not at all. It's still Jesus doing the work. Just like Jesus saves an infant who doesn't know any better to call out His name.
SD
St. Peter was given authority to bind and loose on Heaven and Earth. The office of the Pope is no threat, indeed the only threat it could pose is to people twisting Scripture to fit what they want it to mean as opposed to what it really means. Obviously Christ had faith in this office, why don't you?
What? These 'piscoplians have gone barmy.
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.