Posted on 05/27/2004 7:10:58 AM PDT by AskStPhilomena
You are looking at unity in terms of what can be seen with the eyes, voted on thru man made traditions and or be supported thru the collection plates. In those temporal realities you will always find disunity!
The unity of the Universal church is a Holy Spirit controlled entity that works beyond the scenes in the hearts of Christian believers every-where and often in spite of our weaknesses and temporal disunity and disagreements.
You want to know where true church's of Christ(and of Peter) are thriving...look at the fruits of those churches. Can they be accused of promoting sin and licentiousness or are they known for chastity and fearless promotion of Jesus Christ? Do they proclaim Jesus as God in flesh or do they proclaim Anti-christian apostacy as described in 1st John? Are their doctrines in general agreement as to the general thrust and orthodoxy of the Bible...in other words...original sin, the need for grace and salvation, the oneness of Jesus,Father,Spirit?
Surely these churches...Catholic,Orthodox, or Protestant, if operating under priciples laid out in the Bible(...dare I say even the books of 1st and 2nd Peter), are true churches of Christ...ones in which Peter would have been happy to put his own imprimatur on...should he have claimed such authority for himself!
You are looking at unity in terms of what can be seen with the eyes, voted on thru man made traditions and or be supported thru the collection plates. In those temporal realities you will always find disunity!
The unity of the Universal church is a Holy Spirit controlled entity that works beyond the scenes in the hearts of Christian believers every-where and often in spite of our weaknesses and temporal disunity and disagreements.
You want to know where true church's of Christ(and of Peter) are thriving...look at the fruits of those churches. Can they be accused of promoting sin and licentiousness or are they known for chastity and fearless promotion of Jesus Christ? Do they proclaim Jesus as God in flesh or do they proclaim Anti-christian apostacy as described in 1st John? Are their doctrines in general agreement as to the general thrust and orthodoxy of the Bible...in other words...original sin, the need for grace and salvation, the oneness of Jesus,Father,Spirit?
Surely these churches...Catholic,Orthodox, or Protestant, if operating under priciples laid out in the Bible(...dare I say even the books of 1st and 2nd Peter), are true churches of Christ...ones in which Peter would have been happy to put his own imprimatur on...should he have claimed such authority for himself!
The term Catholic itself means "of the whole body", refering to the whole body of genuine spirit filled Christ professing Christians...no matter what Denomination they hail from!
True churches of Peter will be found to be acting as such! They may Protestant as well as Catholic. It is not the visible that unites the true Church but the invisible thru the working of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of beleivers every where..Protestant or Catholic or Orthodox(as they too seem to claim apostolic Authority!).
Again I assert...True churches of Peter act as such. Even Peter asserted in his epistle that "Christ was the chief builder and cornerstone of the church!"
Its not the visible presence and accepted traditions of an assumed Church of Christ that give it authority...it is its fruits!
GASP! Sounds like Calvinism!
The Baptist position is that when you eat the Lord's supper, you are to do so from the heart as though it were really the blood and body of Jesus Christ.
To do so "unworthily or in a careless manner" is to bring "damnation" to the consumer "because of which many have become sick and many have died" as the scriptures say. The Lord's supper is a serious thing!
That's why I have often found the arguements regarding transubstantiation so superfluous. Regardless of ones position, when you partake of the Lord's supper, even if it remains just bread and wine in the GI tract, it might as well have been Christ's blood and body, in terms of the seriousness that God regards the Eucharist. It is more than just a "memorial service" to many Baptists, it is symbolic of the very lifeblood of God that was poured out for us!
Calvinists can't always be wrong;)
Thanks for the information!
Additionally, while negative sanctions are indicated in I Corinthians 11:27-30 regarding the unworthy consumption of that supper, there are no clear positive sanctions listed for worthy consumption thereof. In this regard, the Lord's Supper differed from the commands given to the people of Israel to obey God's law, in that Deuteronomy 28 gives both positive and negative sanctions for obedience and disobedience, respectively.
The Westminster Shorter Catechism, question 92, defines a sacrament in this manner: "A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers." No Bible-believing Christian would deny that the Lord's Supper is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ. However, the Westminster definition of sacrament goes beyond the idea of representation to that of application of the benefits of the New Covenant. The Presbyterian position is that the Lord's Supper, when received by a believer in a worthy manner, generates a positive sanction to that believer, not unlike that of hearing the Word. However, it does not appear that this positive sanction is a good and necessary consequence of Scriptural teaching.
The "memorial" position on the Lord's Supper conforms most closely to Scriptural teaching.
There is no direct reference to the Cross - this is an imputation given to support the erroneous interpretation you put forth. At what point during Christ's sacrifice on the Cross did anyone "eat His flesh" or "drink His blood"?
You're going to have to excise "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" from your KJV if you keep insisting that people can believe what they wish and be in the true Church of Christ.
One faith,One Lord, One Baptism IN CHRIST!
No. Not with authority. Authority is conferred through Ordination. It has always been that way in the Church, even from the beginning.
Peter himself in those Epistles asserts that it is "Christ that is the CHIEF cornerstone of the church".
Show me where the Orthodox Church has ever denied this.
Why doesn't he assert that Christ had made him the true Church's one foundation in his epistles...hmmmm?
Why doesn't James, in his epistle, assert himself to be Patriarch of Jerusalem?
If your intention is to attack the Primacy of Peter, you might want to come up with something better than an arguement from silence.
I'm arguing that Peter asserts the Primacy of Christ Jesus!(and dies to himself).
Those churches who behave as Peter and the apostles would have expected churches to behave show that the Holy Spirit himself has ordained and established the authority of those churches....
You can argue about traditional authority but you cannot argue with the FRUITS OF THE SPIRIT! If these churches assert that Jesus was God, come in the Flesh...they already have passed one of the main tests as laid down in 1st John...they cannot be accused of anti christian apostacy!
True churches of Peter will act like them! False churches won't!
Instead of reading the remainder of this thread I will heartily agree to this comment. I am not Catholic, Baptist, Calvanist, Presbyterian, Methodist nor do I belong to any other denomination. One thing I do know is that I have received the gift of salvation and my name is in the Lamb's book of life. No organization can take that away from me. No tradition or doctrine of man can steal it from me.
The context of John 6, particularly in light of other Scriptural passages, is that of Jesus discussing His atoning sacrifice, not the remembrance of His Passion symbolized in the Lord's Supper.
If you're right, then we're all okay. If the Catholic Church is right, then you are in serious error and your salvation is in peril.
Define "faith."
Christ the Son obeyed the Father's Will. This is not a direct reference to the Cross.
Also, John 6:51b, "..the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
Christ did indeed give His flesh in the Holy Eucharist as a means for those who consume it to "have life in them," i.e. the life of sanctifying grace, which is the partaking of His "divine nature," as St. Peter explains in his Epistle.
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.