The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[Uri’el-2012]

I do not know how you define "the church," but if its unity in truth is not such that outsiders can recognize it, then you're going to have to say Jesus goofed in John 16 & 17.
16:12-14. I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you into the complete truth. ...all he tells you will be taken from what is mine.
17:19-21. And for their (the eleven's) sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me.

70 posted on 10/15/01 1:12 PM Mountain by allend

Allen, I'm agreeing with you more and more.

My understanding of these verses point to the Scriptures that were penned by the apostles under the breath of the Holy Spirit.

I believe that Allen is testifying to what he calls Sola Scriptura.

I prefer to call it "the serious study of God's Inerrant Word"

Tehillim (Psalm) 19:14 May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.

XeniaSt

[SoothingDave]

Christ is the head of the church, His body, and is himself its Savior

But since we learn in John 6 that "the flesh is of no avail" and using the principle that Scripture helps interpret Scripture, we deduce that this passage you quote is of little signifigance and is obviously a metaphor.

We can no more mean that we are "his body" than we could that a mere piece of bread is "his body."

SD

[SoothingDave]

I believe that Allen is testifying to what he calls Sola Scriptura.

I believe you will find yourself mistaken. Firstly, the Catholic Church as the author and canonizer of Scripture has no compunction about using it to spread the message.

Secondly, since nothing except canonized Scripture is recognized as truthful by the more extreme memebers of the Protestant family, we use it for your benefit. If you only wish to accept Scripture as an argument, we will supply it.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

I can grab any one of you self-professed "saved, born-again" Christians, fully empowered by the "Holy Spirit" to understand Scripture, and get conflicting answers from you all. How is this light? This is chaos.
------------------------------------------------------------

I am not one of the self-professed "saved, born-again, Christians you so happily ridicule. I am a former RC who, one day, began to question and think for myself. I don't begin to claim I have all the answers. I am; however, certain I am no longer being misled but possibly myself. I accept this responsibility.

You claim to think for yourself. This must be bullshit. If your independent thought happened to conflict with defined doctrine what do you do? If you insist this couldn't happen I would question your integrity.

When Rome speaks - shut up and obey!

[JohnnyM]

so you're saying the church is not His body???

JM

[Pelayo]

The RCC was used to being the bully on the block, and it threw a fit when C of E was formed. I would sumbmit that It threw as big a fit when it wasn't given preferential treatment in america. But then ya'll want us to view it as the church being picked on.

You are making up history. How about you prove that the Catholics made a fuss. Where and in what circumstances did they not except it (wrong though they knew it to be)?

[the808bass]

For transubstantiation we gave you Bp. Ignatius, one of the disciples of the Apostle John, ca. 106 A.D.

I found this quote by Ignatius which was a bit interesting.

Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth ] the unity of His blood;

From his epistle to the Philadelphians

In regards to Ignatius' quote, I would like to point out some things, in context. Ignatius is apparently doing fierce battle with the Docetists. Docetism denies that Christ actually died, that he only appeared to die. Thus, Ignatius' emphasis on Jesus "truly" dying, "truly" suffering, etc. So, the issue of the Eucharist is tangential to the main point. When he says that

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.

he seems to mean that they deny the truth of the actual crucifixion and the issue of the Eucharist is not his main focus, as is evident by the preceding sections. No doubt, you will throw up your hands and mutter some things about "invincible ignorance" at this point, but I think the quote from Ignatius is taken out of context (not to mention that the "longer version" has nothing of the sort in it).

[SoothingDave]

so you're saying the church is not His body???

No, I am being utterly facetious in displaying what I've learned about proper Bible interpretation from my Protestant friends. I should have thrown a smiley or two in there.

SD

[JohnnyM]

yeah, smiley faced would have helped :)

JM

[SoothingDave]

the issue of the Eucharist is not his main focus, as is evident by the preceding sections.

It may not be the main foucs of the passage, but isn't it often the case that when we speak "off the cuff" on a subject it is often truer than when we try to formally discuss something? Almost in passing, when he mentions the Eucharist he uses the terms "flesh" and "blood," with no hint of irony or symbolism. It is just as straightforward and as simple as if I was telling a story today and mentioned in passage "the Body and Blood"

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

So did Jews, because they did not want their children indoctrinated into Protestantism. Havoc, do you have children? Do they go to public schools? The difference nowadays is that they indoctrinate secular humanism rather than Protestantism. There are plenty of Christians of all backgrounds who refuse to allow their children to attend public schools, precisely because they don't agree with the ideological instruction.
------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with you. One of my daughters (Protestant), sends her children to a Catholic Parochial School simply because it is the best school in her area.

She does not; however, ask for a subsidy to do so. She pays her local taxes and tuition to the "private" school because she recognizes it as a personal choice.

[the808bass]

The Catholic/Orthodox posters have the history, tradition and witness of the early church from the time of Christ to the present.

And

no Catholic will deny that doctrine most certainly develop

So you are agreeing that the Tradition is not static but changes and develops. Thus, you are agreeing that Tradition does not equal the oral tradition of the 1st century. Have I got it right so far?

When did your Church hold it's first council?

Acts. (If you keep throwin underhanded, I'm gonna keep hammerin em) And I'm having a Miss Cleo moment...

[the808bass]

Almost in passing, when he mentions the Eucharist he uses the terms "flesh" and "blood," with no hint of irony or symbolism. It is just as straightforward and as simple as if I was telling a story today and mentioned in passage "the Body and Blood"

First, in the other quotation of Ignatius which I gave, he does use some verbage that might promote a more symbolic view of the Eucharist.

Secondly, he is mentioning the literal body and the blood in response to people who deny that Christ really existed in the form of flesh and blood. So, his defense of doctrine (IMVHO) against Docetism is somewhat stretched into some sort of transubstantiation by people reading it now.

Thirdly, are we supposed to take the longer or the shorter version of the epistle as authentic?

[OLD REGGIE]

Why would Our Lord light a candle and then hide it? Why can't we find "The Church" without having to sort through a lot of nonsense and making individual judgments about a person's salvation?
------------------------------------------------------------

We can find "The Church" simply and easily. Just say "Jesus I accept You as my Lord and Savior". DONE!

My argument with you, if any, is the impression given, (not as much by you as some others) that WE ARE THE "ONE TRUE-etc) and all the rest of you are second class citizens.

[SoothingDave]

She does not; however, ask for a subsidy to do so. She pays her local taxes and tuition to the "private" school because she recognizes it as a personal choice.

It is a shame that folks have to pay twice to get their children educated without being indoctrinated (in secular humanism). Both the parents and society as a whole have an interest in having educated children. True experts in various fields should design certain acceptance criteria for schools to meet and the state should then allow any parents x amount of money to send their children to whatever school (including the local public) that they desire. Money more than x needed for a particular school should come from the parents or other charitable sources.

We need to expose the public schools and make them compete in the marketplace of ideas.

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Acts. (If you keep throwin underhanded, I'm gonna keep hammerin em) And I'm having a Miss Cleo moment...

"Hammerin em" is too mild. That was a 500 foot McQuire shot.

[JohnnyM]

"with no priesthood or church as an intermediary".

We are all priests, so there is no need for a priestly cast. The veil has been torn and we all have access to the Holy of Holies through Christ Jesus our Lord.

JM