Posted on 07/10/2007 6:03:29 AM PDT by markomalley
Yes, do it in remembrance of the Lord's Death, it doesn't have anything to do with any real body and blood of Christ.
And we are to do it with the view that Christ is returning.
When was it the last time you heard of a Pope talking about Christ's return?
That would put him out of a job wouldn't it?
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. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep [died].
Yes, and Baptists teach that if one does not confess his sins before eating the communion bread and juice, he can cause himself to be judged, even unto the sin unto death (1Jn.5)
You will note that in that same chapter Paul states that if we judge ourselves, we will not be judged (no Priest necessary!).
That is because Peter tells us we are all priests (1Pe.2:9)
Maybe it's just me. But some actual early Christians seemed to think so too
Its both you, and your false religion.
What others thought is irrelevant to what the verses say.
There is nothing about Transubstantation in those verses.
And the Roman Catholic Church is not the Christian Church, which was formed as a spiritual body in Acts 2 and consisted of local churches meeting in homes.
It is often asserted by Roman Catholic apologists that Protestants must rely on their tradition in order to know which books ought to be included in the Biblical Canon. The argument says that since there is no “inspired table of contents” for the Bible, then we are forced into relying upon tradition to dictate which books belong in the Bible, and which books do not. It was the church of Rome, these apologists alledge, which determined the canon at the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.), and it is only due to this, that Protestants know which books are inspired, and which are not. Consequently, it is the Roman Church which should be submitted to on issues of faith.
The argument of Roman Catholics for the Canon is spurious on a number of counts.
First of all, the Councils of Carthage and Hippo did not establish the canon for the Church as a whole. The New Catholic Encyclopedia actually affirms the fact that the Canon was not officially and authoritatively established for the Western Church until the Council of Trent in the 16th century and that even such an authority as Pope Gregory the Great rejected the Apocrypha as canonical:
St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).
The teachings of Rome contradict Scripture and much of its teaching, such as that on Tradition, the Papacy, Mary, the sacraments, purgatory, in addition to that of the Canon is patently contradictory to much of the teachings of the early Church. More importantly, its gospel message is a perversion of the teaching of the Scriptural gospel.
http://christiantruth.com/canon.html
You are quite right, that was James who said that.
However, you are wrong when you say he wasn’t talking about salvation! Read the entire passage: James, chp2, v14-26; it’s very clear that salvation IS what he is talking about.
If you think faith alone is adequate, consider this: “Even the demons believe—..” Are you saying that the demons will be saved because they have faith that Jesus Christ is the son of God? If not, why? (Because of their works?)
Peace,
BTTT! Thanks for the thread.
However, you are wrong when you say he wasn’t talking about salvation! Read the entire passage: James, chp2, v14-26; it’s very clear that salvation IS what he is talking about.
James is speaking of one showing ones faith which shows that one has it, it doesn't add to it.
The examples given showed (Abraham, Rahab) showed faith working, not works with faith.
Paul states the same thing in Rom.2:13, when he states to be not just a hearer of the word but a doer also, like James does (Ja.1:22).
If you think faith alone is adequate, consider this: “Even the demons believe—..” Are you saying that the demons will be saved because they have faith that Jesus Christ is the son of God? If not, why? (Because of their works?)
The Devils believe that there is one God and tremple.
Believing in one God will not get anyone saved, they must be believe in the Risen Christ (Jn.14:6) or do you think Muslims and Jews are saved?
Ye are saved by grace, through faith, not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast.(Eph.2:8-9).
Peter stated the same thing in Acts 15, faith without works.
Works are produced because one is saved,(Jn.15), they do not get one saved or keep one saved.
This document merely repeats what John Paul II wrote in his encyclical “Dominus Ieusus.” It is not a new teaching or a return to an older teaching. The Church never changed its teaching that it is the one true Church, founded by Christ.
"For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." (1 Cor. 11:29)...
What others thought is irrelevant to what the verses say...
I don't see where we can go from here.
But in case any lurkers are interested, the term "anemnesis" ("remembrance") has a very specific and stronger meaning within the context of the Seder meal, which is, the notion of "being made present." In the Seder meal, Jews believe that the Passover of Exodus is actually made present, rather than simply remembered. And that's the sense of the term that Jesus is using here.
An interesting explication of the Eucharist in connection with the Seder meal.
Gee, and here I was thinking that remembrance meant to remember!
As for the Jews, they were commanded to remember the Passover as part of their spiritual heritage, that the lamb died for them, not that God was actually present in the lamb they were eating.
The eating of the lamb showed faith and they were protected by the blood outside their doors, they were not to eat the blood.
LOL!
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.