Posted on 06/27/2009 10:33:55 PM PDT by bdeaner
Bwahahahahahha! You must have forgotten. Questioning my beliefs is how I left evangelicalism for the Catholic Church. Protestants keep making promises for God that he doesn't keep, then they contrive a holy loophole for letting God off the hook.
More than twenty years of slavery to sin that evangelicals told me to "give to Jesus" prove they are selling a bill of goods.
My freedom from the law of sin and death came AFTER receiving the body and blood of my Lord and Christ, and there is no amount of slander you people can sling that can take that experience from me.
The Catholic Church denies that too.
Holy Eucharist is a re-presentation of the same one-time sacrifice on Calvary.
"11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest , he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy."
I've had some explain that God is not affected by time, and therefor the one sacrifice, to God, is always ongoing. However, God is the One using the past tense - not me.
Mr Rogers:
Thanks for the link from Pope Benedict. I try and read everything he writes and I missed that homily of his. It is a very good read and I think Pope Benedict interpreting the scripture in a fashion that stresses both Peter and Pauls concerns, while at the same time stressing they remained in the bond of communion with each other and the other apostles.
Also, I think my post is entirely consistent with what the Pope Wrote. Again, it is clear that St. Peter was accused of being hypocritical, as the Pope notes. Also, you are you are correct, I laid the charge of envy and presumption towards St.Jerome, when he in fact was indicating it was a charge made by others and he was writing to St. Augustine to stress that both of them needed to protect both of the Apostles [Peter and Paul] from shameless blasphemies.
I thank you for catching that as I did not read the link I gave you close enough on that point. Thus, with your correction, and I appreciate the charitable manner you exhibited in pointing that out, I think we can say that St. Jerome was concerned with protecting the integrity of both St. Peter and St. Paul as apostles who both were sent by Christ to preach the Gospel and not have either of them subject to false attacks. Thus, the charges that St. Paul being envious of St. Peter are being refuted by St. Jerome and the charges that St. Peter taught false doctrine, which was the claim that others in this forum made, not you, is also being rejected by ST. Jerome.
Still, I think you would agree that what St. Paul was accusing St. Peter of, he himself also did, so in the end, I think both had to make sure that when confronted with the potential for division between the Jewish-Christians and Gentile Christians, they tried to be pastorally sensitive to not causing the Jewish Christians to reject Christianity and return back to Judaism.
Pax et bonum
Then you haven't run into John 6 or The Last Supper. If Christ says I'm a jelly doughnut, then I'm a jelly doughnut whether I look and taste like one or not.
To deny Christ's authority to pronounce reality and existence is to deny his deity. To ignore Christ's statements of John 6 and refuse to "interpret scripture by scripture" in understanding the events of The Last Supper is to deny the body and blood of Christ.
Galatians was written pretty early, and I’ve always thought that if Paul wrote it at a later date, he might be a bit more careful. I’ve learned, and re-learned, and will need to relearn again, that being right avails you for naught if you are so bombastic that people tune you out after the first words.
The Pope was spot on about how a difference in ministry can lead to a difference in approach, with neither meaning harm. Apart from that, I think we’ll have to respectfully disagree with the most accurate interpretation of what happened that day in Antioch.
Cheers.
Then you've never met a protestant.
Being "born again" is an act unto itself, not a repetition of birth. Look up "church" in the phone book, and pick one. They'll explain it to you.
Yes. The Scripture is complete as written; it does not need extra traditions or rules.
Traditions of the Church Christ founded are not man-made, and they do not contradict Scripture.
Proof please? Where does the tradition that priests are to be celibate come from Scripture? Just that one, for example...
That is not a Scriptural position. At all. It is a tradition of man. That means it is fallible. That does NOT mean ALL the Church's traditions and teachings are wrong, but it also means the Church itself is fallible.
But NOW, after those hundreds if not thousands of translations, you have found a translator who has a REAL understanding of what needed to be translated, eh???
Let's see, you old church fathers are better at understanding biblical times because they were nearer to the action...
But recent translators are better because; what was your reasoning again??? Hmmm...
That is irrelevant. When the only authority one accepts is Scripture, everything not specifically explained and authorized by Scripture is NOT an authoritative, therefore binding, precept.
You can't have it both ways.
Then you are denying the body and blood of Christ.
or that Christ is sacrificed repeatedly.
At least we can agree on something ;o)
In this verse, we learn God is a chicken...
So tell me where the word "chicken" shows up in that verse and I'll agree you aren't mocking God.
John 6.
Neither do I...but I know plenty that THINK they are Christians.
You are not physically "born again"; you are born in the Holy Spirit. Nicodemus got it wrong, he misunderstood and took it literally. Not the figurative/illustrative way in which the Lord said it.
Perhaps that same mistake can be made with the phrase "this is My body given for you, do this in remembrance of Me"; perhaps Jesus meant to reflect on the sacrifice He would make by re-enacting the action. Not actual transubstantiation of the host and wine?
Jesus spent most of His ministry talking in parables, preaching and teaching allegorically. To deny that extending that understanding is a valid position for this one phrase is quite close-minded and restrictive.
But ultimately, the action of Communion, while an important and building action for a Christian, is NOT required for salvation. That is by faith alone, as Jesus specifically said. No allegory, no parable, direct statement with no further clarification asked or offered.
I know the scriptures. What took place at the Last Supper and at the cross? The Lords Supper the establishment of The New Covenant. "This is my body" replacing the Lamb and "this is my blood" replacing the blood placed on the door and also the sign of a Blood Covenant of which is not dependent upon man to fulfill but rather GOD Himself. The bread is just that it is bread as the wine is just that it is wine it is a TOKEN or a way to remember or to honor.
The presence of Christ or The Holy Spirit can come at any time at any place. It can happen in a church or in a hospital room. Why do people believe that the only way to achieve such is through rituals? Have you ever felt the very presence of such? It is a very overcoming experience and can be a very peaceful one as well. The peace that surpasses all understanding a comfort within not obtainable by any worldly means.
I don't reject "Do This". But I do understand that is established for our benefit so we remind ourselves of the price that was paid for us. Paul taught how it was to be done. Christ presence is where two or more are gathered in His name. The words Christ spoke was so the Disciples would understand who he was and what His death on the cross actually meant. When they took the bread and wine at the Last Supper to them it was part of the Passover Feast. They did not understand. When Christ appeared to them after His resurrection and offered them bread and wine they understood what had happened. It was only then they knew what The Lamb of GOD meant.
The Lamb as by Hebrew tradition was without blemish, lived among them away from the other lambs, and the family was close to the Lamb. The sacrificial Lamb was not plucked from a field it was picked way in advance and kept close with the family. In today's sense it was like killing a beloved pet. This was done so they would feel remorse for their sins that caused the required death of the Lamb at the Passover Feast. Thus the reason Paul instructed the churches in question about The Lord's Supper. It is the Gentile equivalent of The Passover Feast from the Laws of Moses.
Are you saying that because the creator is using the past tense while communicating with temporal creations he is somehow less than eternal?
James 2:
"21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."
Note, James does not say, "Abraham had faith, and maybe someday he'll accumulate enough good deeds to complete his faith and save him".
I became a Christian in the 7th grade. I had been thinking over what I had been taught for a while. One day, several kids - older and bigger - wanted to fight me. I decided that God didn't want me to fight, so I took a pretty thorough beating.
I've always considered THAT to be the moment of salvation for me. In retrospect, I'm not a pacifist. In fact, I spent 25+ years in the military. But at that moment, I believed God didn't want me to fight, and IN FAITH, I obeyed.
"...and his faith was made complete by what he did." Not 'will be made complete', and not, 'is in progress' - but "his faith was made complete by what he did."
For some, that moment may be marked by baptism. For some, going forward on an altar call. For me, it was getting beat up. Frankly, baptism would have been easier...cleaner, too!
“Then you are denying the body and blood of Christ.”
No, I’m RELYING on the body and blood of Jesus.
I’m DENYING the bread and wine...
God is eternal. I assume He had His reasons for using the past tense.
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.