Posted on 10/19/2011 7:55:51 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
So, when you read and apply Scripture, you are doing so comprehensively. But when I read and apply Scripture, I am engaging in prooftexting.
Sounds kinda juvenile to accuse me of such a thing, doesn’t it?
Now why would you imply that I’m a “lone ranger”? I am a member of Christ’s Bride, adopted into His family by Christ Himself. I’m no lone ranger. I am among the community of saints, as are all those whom the Lord has saved.
Article 10 of the Augsburg Confession, the original confessional statement of those who later became known as Lutherans states:
It is taught among us that the true body and blood of Christ are really present in the Supper of our Lord under the form of bread and wine and are there distributed and received. The contrary doctrine is therefore rejected.
There are no dead saints, Theo. The saints are more alive than you or I.
Is there any example in Scripture of a living person talking with someone who has died? I can’t think of any.
And I'm another. That doesn't give either of us authority to interpret Scripture on our own.
Theo, without the Church, you wouldn't even know what is authentic Scripture and what's not. For believers, there is no dealing with Scripture without reference to the Church that gives them to us.
Good grief, read the Scripture about the Transfiguration of Christ.
Ah, that’s rich. Knock yourself out.
Excuse me. I disaqree. You certainly did quote a passage of scripture,but you also used it as a evidence in an argument and based its usefulness on a decision that Paul meant the word "bread" to be understood simply and literally. I am not questioning here whether that decision be(it's national subjunctive month) sound. I am only questioning the use of the word "simply" and the assertion that all you did was quote.
What you did seems fine to my ignorant mind, but it was by no means only a quote nor in any way simple.
Who holds such doctrine? That is not in Aquinas nor in any other Catholic theologian on the Real Presence.
i am ready to learn about any non-Catholic Christians before the 16th century any time you wish to share your vast knowledge of Church History with us.
somehow i think i will be waiting a long time.
read 1 Corinthians 10:17
is there one loaf? only in the sense there is One Lord.
it is amazing that there are those that attack a doctrine that was universally believed by the Church for 16 centuries before heresies arose.
read what Ignatius wrote about the Eucharist, do you think St John did not teach him properly what the Eucharist is?
why do you think Jesus didn’t say “this REPRESENTS my body”?
gee, it will be news to the saints in heaven that they are “dead”
it will be news to the martyrs depicted in Revelation 6:10, are they “dead” as well?
i thought absent from the body, present with the Lord, but i guess they are “dead”.
let’s test romulus’s theory:
theo, how do you determine which books are Scripture and which are not? is there any human authority or institution that can definitively state the correct canon or are we left to guess or decide on our own?
bump
And you dialog with these people? I believe that’s called necromancy, something Scripture condemns.
The NT canon became clear within the first 100 to 200 years A.D. The fellowship of believers, the Church, put their stamp of approval on it some time later. Of course, I don’t accept the Apocropha as biblical, a stance consistent with early believers.
The OT canon was established by the time Jesus walked the earth.
I love Scripture, and am grateful to the believers who wrote it and recognized it as authoritative.
A clear figure of speech that is used to make a point.
But he didn't hold the door and say, "This is my Body."
We’re all “catholic,” if we’re members of Christ’s Church. Catholic simply mean universal, the entire body of those whom the Lord has adopted into His family.
There weren’t any Roman Catholics until some time after Jesus ascended into heaven. The heirarchy was largely Roman for hundreds of years. At some point the Church heirarchy had grown so corrupt and heretical that God brought a revival, and drew a remnant back to Scripture, so that they might better understand Him and His will for them, and the fuller glory of His gospel.
Now we are free to consider heaven our home, with Christ as our high priest. No need to go “home to Rome” or “cross the Tiber.”
At some point the Church heirarchy had grown so corrupt and heretical that God brought a revival, and drew a remnant back to Scripture, so that they might better understand Him and His will for them, and the fuller glory of His gospel.
Really Theo? When did this "revival" happen, how did God draw back your "remnant" and what denomination holds that "remnant" today?
And then, if you happened to read in entirety instead of in excerpts you would see that in 1 Cor. 11:26, Paul says: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Paul expressly states here ........................that those who eat this bread and drink this cup are also partaking of the true body and blood of Christ.
And, to continue with what our Protestant Lutheran brethren say: So "real" is this participation in Christ's body and blood, in fact, that (according to Paul) those who partake of the bread and wine "in an unworthy manner" are actually guilty of "profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27). (Partaking of the Lord's Supper "in a worthy manner," of course, is not something that we "do" or "accomplish" on the basis of our "personal holiness" or "good works.
Stop reading in excerpts -- that is what leads to your faulty theology.
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.