Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
It is 1 Corinthians 11. You are correct, the main distinction is between those who treat the eucharist as a happy meal and the proper way. But he also, in v. 29 speaks of the body of the Lord present in the Eucharist. My remarl was to a poster who advised me to approach the Lord "boldly". I posted from Cor 11 where that boldness is explained not be confused with lack of reverence, or else it becomes onto condemnation.
You are not saved until you are judged. If you believe, chances are that you will become suffciently merciful and pure in heart by the time you face the judgment that you will be saved when God judges you after death. If you don't believe, chances are that you won't.
God knows who believes as lip service and who believes in ernest and tries honestly to follow Chirst even if one honestly fails.
Well, YEAH! That and Yankees fans.
I stand corrected. I meant the "indwelling of the Holy Spirit" to be problematic, but the grammar I mangled indeed mistakenly referred to the Holy Spirit Himself.
It doesn't say that God demanded sacrifice.
The issue was the theology of atonement of St. Anselm. When I see you taking the scriptural critique of the protestant falsehoods seriously, I will begin taking your reverence toward the scripture seriously.
We disagree on the interpretation of that text; however that aside, Post 5581 started the conversation (with Annalex). It then went on to me questioning what Eucharist is, if not a sacrifice. To this, I received the definition of the word "Eucharist" rather than an explanation of what it is. It is obvious that the Orthodox and Catholics believe it is a sacrifice. But now, this begs the question, what is this sacrifice for? You all seem (correct me if I am wrong) to believe that this is a continuance of the sacrifice Christ made on Calvary. Yet, somehow it appears that many do not believe that Christ's sacrifice was for the purpose of paying the penalty for our sins as our substitute. So, what is it for? A distinction is being made between God's desire and His demand which I believe is a false distinction (for reasons aforestated). We believe that God's justice demanded that the penalty for sin be paid for and that He willingly substituted the payment of His perfect Son's life to pay that price (death). Do you all believe something differently?
Saying "because we want to" isn't exactly taking things seriously yourself. And so far, I have not seen "Protestant falsehoods" illustrated on any essential matters.
I actually like the Yankees best in the American League on religious grounds.
It was one of the world series between the Yankees and the Braves. They showed both locker rooms and the Brave's were G-d d&(ming this and G-d d@#)($*ng that (something I absolutely can not STAND. I'll take the F word a million times over GD or JC used as a curse). Anyway, shortly thereafter, I don't remember who it was, but one of the Yankees was thanking His Lord Jesus Christ. I've liked them ever since.
The Eucharist they don't need, as they are not capable of sinning. As a Catholic I take the Holy Scripture literally, and literally it teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. There is an extrascriptural speculation that the innocent babies slaughtered in the Holocaust of abortion are saved by the extraordinary mercy of Christ, together with the Holy Innocents. There is another that they receive baptism of blood similar to the Good Thief. At any rate, they do not experience any pain of Hell due tot their innocence. St, Augistine taught that they are in a region of hell where they have all possible natural happiness, but deprived of the supernatural happiness of heaven. This is, best that I know, the range of Catholic thought on the subject. Also see Limbo.
"You all seem (correct me if I am wrong) to believe that this is a continuance of the sacrifice Christ made on Calvary. Yet, somehow it appears that many do not believe that Christ's sacrifice was for the purpose of paying the penalty for our sins as our substitute. So, what is it for?"
Its late and I'll answer in more detail, probably patristic detail, tomorrow, but quickly, it has to do with The Evil One and bondage to death wrought by sin.
I think languages are easier for kids. And Greeks use those funny letters alpha, beta... phe, phi, phoe, phum..
Kolo, did you take classes or Berlitz or use tapes?
The question is, did God demand the sacrifice of the Cross, not whether it was given.
And?
such a term could very well lead to a wrong impression
It could, but our aim here is precision. Since the council of Ephesus and till the Reformation no one seemed to misunderstand it.
Well, let's see them! I can tell you that Hebrews 10 is anything but what the Church practices.
take for example
"For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." [v.14]
[and I though they were perfected from before all ages according to +Paul]
Now, where does Chris say this in the Gospels? IOW, where is +Paul getting all this from?
I am not ready to discuss St. Anselm intelligently. Maybe next week I will. My gut feeling is that the transactional semantics of atonement: Christ buying salvation from God, is a gross to the point of heresy approximation of what St. Anselm taught.
I'm confused by your post. Are you saying that Christ sanctified us once for all on the cross based upon Hebrews? Are you saying that Paul made it up and that the gospels are the only rule? Not sure what you are saying. Would you clarify?
Put in the context of Romans 5, I agree, but then boast means boast in the ability to confess sin. We also should not forget that the body of Christ is present at the Altar in a unique way.
God, the Holy Spirit.
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.