Posted on 08/18/2012 9:13:06 PM PDT by Salvation
Amen, so have I! I think our FRoman catholic friends maybe were a little bored lately since the Religion Forum hasn't been as acrimonious as they seem to like, so they repost yet another provocative thread mocking "those" Protestants and boasting that they alone have the only real gateway to salvation. Yet, we understand from the Holy Scriptures that we ARE save by grace through faith and NOT by the deeds or works that we do.
Telling people they HAVE to go to Mass and receive the literal body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ through a "legitimate" apostolic priest saying the precise words and wearing the "right" garments, etc. to ever have a glimmer of a hope that they may one day be worthy to go to their "beatific vision" is just plain UNSCRIPTURAL. It is also an accursed Gospel since it is something other than what Paul said WAS the Gospel.
The Catholic Church teaches that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice for sin and this is why she insists that without participating in the Eucharist a set number of times a year, you cannot be saved. The Mass, then is just another "means" of getting grace. But we know from Scripture that it is faith alone in the finished work of Christ that saves us from our sins and we can be assured that we have been redeemed from the penalty of our sins and can KNOW that we HAVE everlasting life. So much of what the Catholic Church has taught over the centuries is NOT what has been "always and everywhere believed", but is a compromise of differing interpretations and ideologies of those who came before. There is an excellent essay on this subject that speaks about the differing views of the "church fathers" and the development of the doctrines they now claim to hold. It is http://www.the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html. This additional link gives several short essays into the subject: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search?q=eucharist.
It is humorous that in the article of this current thread, the author derides the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura saying the rejection of the "literal" Catholic version of the Lord's Supper goes against the doctrine, but then the author quotes verses to try to prove his interpretation is the ONLY correct one. Catholics usually think all that matters is what they are told is de fide (of the faith) today and don't worry whether or not Scripture substantiates it. We know, however, that the Bible is the God-breathed truth that IS the authority for our Christian faith. Counting on fallible and sinful men to be the Oracles of God to us is faulty and, even, deadly.
We know that Scripture teaches Christ died "once for all" and that He "is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them." I'm not worried in the least that not being a Roman Catholic condemns me - because for freedom Christ has set me free.
“I’m not surprised you’ve never heard of it before. Catholics, on average, can’t be depended upon to read the Bible! As for the article, it does nothing to address what I have said.”
~ ~ ~
So many confirmations, read the below and reply. Still, Jesus wants you to believe, HAVE FAITH dear RaisingCain, God can make this happen, His presence in the Eucharist.
You believe in the Incarnation, it’s supernatural, yes?
There’s more supernatural so come along, change, accept
the Eucharist on faith.
The Memorial Sacrifice
After Christ consecrated and distributed His Body and Blood, He commanded the apostles to “Do this in remembrance of Me.” That word - remembrance - is very important, because the Greek word it is translated from refers to a deep and complex concept that has no proper word or even short phrase in modern languages. That word is ANAMNESIS, and, according to the best evidence, means a type of memorial sacrifice. What is a memorial sacrifice? Note that it’s not the memorial of a sacrifice but rather a sacrifice that is itself a memorial - a critical distinction.
Because there is some contention regarding the meaning of anamnesis, we will look at how it is used elsewhere in the New Testament and the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament).
In the Old Testament, anamnesis is used to refer to either a bread sacrifice or a blood sacrifice - a memorial sacrifice, that is. Lev 24, full of the same terminology of priests, eating, memorial sacrifice, incense and bread that surrounds the Eucharist, speaks of the anamnesis of Aaron’s priesthood. And Numbers 10 speaks of the burnt offerings of anamnesis offered to God to atone for sin. The parallels with the New Covenant Sacrifice are plentiful.
Anamnesis is used ONLY ONCE in the New Testament outside of the Last Supper narratives, in Heb 10, where Paul speaks of the Levitical sacrifices.
So, the concept of anamnesis existed in the Hebrew culture (religion): as mentioned in the Introduction the Passover itself has always been regarded by Jews as not just a remembrance of the Exodus, but as a re-living or “making present” of those events. And so it is with the Eucharist: It is the making-present, in a mystical way, of Christ’s sacrificial death. When Christ said “Do this anamnesis” He literally said “Celebrate this memorial sacrifice”. And so the Church has always done:
This is John and the statement is not the fundamental governing statement on salvation, nor does it cover all possibilities. I pointed out what God said about the matter above, who are His sheep and that what He said on the matter is fundamental and covers all possibilities.
What you gave from John does not cover those folks that are considered the goats by God in Matt 25:41-46. It also doesn't cover what God said in Matthew 23:15 about "believers" — "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are."
“God in Matt 25:31-39 contradicts this simple reading of Paul. “
To be righteous, one must first be cleaned by God. Presumably you have told lies, have lusted after women (if you are a man), have not loved the Lord God with all your heart and soul.
The scripture teaches that if we offend in even one part, we are guilty of violating the entire law.
Jas_2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
It also teaches that there are NONE who are righteous:
Isa_64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Rom 3:10-13 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (11) There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. (12) They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (13) Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
So how does one become righteous?
Christ answers:
Joh 11:25-26 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: (26) And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Joh_6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
The scripture is quite clear that we must eat of His flesh, and drink of His blood, in order to be saved. He literally GAVE His flesh on the cross to take on the sins of the world. As the other scripture I showed you from Christ Himself demonstrates, if you do not eat of this bread or drink of His blood, you are damned already. (Of course, the words that I speak are SPIRIT and LIFE :).)
As for those who never heard of Christ, they will be judged according to their works by God’s perfect judgment according to natural law, which all men have written on their hearts.
Rom 2:12-16 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (13) (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. (14) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: (15) Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) (16) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Unfortunately, it is a terrible thing to stand before the mighty God on the basis of your OWN “righteousness,” as any fair rendering of even the natural law would reveal every man to be hopelessly depraved. Whatever Christ’s judgment on that day, you can rest assured it will be a fair one. Not fair in your Universalist sense, of course, but fair according to the perfect Judge of the world. If it were not so, what would be the point of any of Christ’s teachings? It is a dangerous thing to depend on your own righteousness, as all men everywhere are depraved in every age and every corner of the globe.
“This is John and the statement is not the fundamental governing statement on salvation, nor does it cover all possibilities. I pointed out what God said about the matter above, who are His sheep and that what He said on the matter is fundamental and covers all possibilities.”
That is not John. It is in the Gospel of John. But those are the words of Christ.
I already addressed that the word Ananmnesis does not actually mean “Memorial Sacrifice.” Read my post on it.
"That is not John. It is in the Gospel of John. But those are the words of Christ.
They are the words of John, not Christ. John is stating what he believes, which is not what God said on the matter of condemnation.
“They are the words of John, not Christ. John is stating what he believes, which is not what God said on the matter of condemnation.”
It specifically cites Christ as the speaker! Do you deny that the Gospel of John is authentic then? Quite convenient to cut out and paste in only what is convenient, and yet you have the audacity to attempt to argue from scripture!
That's faulty logic and the passage is taken out of context. The full meaning can only be grasped by including the next passage, which was left out. James 2:10,11, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker." All it means is that one transgression renders a person a lawbreaker, not a breaker of every law.
"God said in John 9 that neither the blind man, nor his parents sinned. Most of the other characters in the passage were determined that he did. They even invented the concept of original sin to make him a sinner from birth and the motivation was their desire and determination for that blind man to call Jesus a sinner. The blind man, who was no longer blind refused to call Jesus a sinner and they just couldn't stand that, so they invented original sin as an ad hominem response to validate their own "righteousness" and "worth". BTW, Noah was also righteous.
"...all men everywhere are depraved in every age and every corner of the globe."
I don't believe it.
"The scripture teaches that if we offend in even one part, we are guilty of violating the entire law. Jas_2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
That's faulty logic and the passage is taken out of context. The full meaning can only be grasped by including the next passage, which was left out. James 2:10,11, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker." All it means is that one transgression renders a person a lawbreaker, not a breaker of every law.
God said in John 9 that neither the blind man, nor his parents sinned. Most of the other characters in the passage were determined that he did. They even invented the concept of original sin to make him a sinner from birth and the motivation was their desire and determination for that blind man to call Jesus a sinner. The blind man, who was no longer blind refused to call Jesus a sinner and they just couldn't stand that, so they invented original sin as an ad hominem response to validate their own "righteousness" and "worth". BTW, Noah was also righteous.
"...all men everywhere are depraved in every age and every corner of the globe."
I don't believe it.
"It specifically cites Christ as the speaker! Do you deny that the Gospel of John is authentic then? Quite convenient to cut out and paste in only what is convenient, and yet you have the audacity to attempt to argue from scripture!
The speaker is John. The speaker John is referring to Christ. The speaker John is nether quoting Christ, nor referring to what He said. The speaker John is simply stating what he believes.
You are the one that cut and pasted this verse alone to support the claim of sola fide. I simply pointed out that it contradicts what God said about the matter.
“All it means is that one transgression renders a person a lawbreaker, not a breaker of every law.”
And as a lawbreaker, he cannot be saved by the law, but only condemned by it. For whosoever lives by the law will be judged according to the law. But, thankfully, we are dead to the law:
Gal_2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
Rom_7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Your faulty logic and dismissal of the scripture did not lead you far enough!
—
“God said in John 9 that neither the blind man, nor his parents sinned.”
So now you believe in the Gospel of John again? Are you claiming that the blind man and his parents were sinless individuals? The context was referring to the cause of his blindness, whether it was a judgment from God or no. It was not claiming they were perfect. No man is perfect. That is why men are “condemned ALREADY” if they do not believe. They are dead in their sins.
—
“I don’t believe it.”
Whether you believe it or not is immaterial to what scripture teaches, which I already proved soundly.
Have you ever spoken a lie?
Have you ever committed adultery, even so much as lusting after a woman in your heart, which is adultery in the heart according to Christ?
Have you ever hated anyone?
Have you ever worshiped other gods?
Have you ever stolen anything?
Have you sold all that you belong, given it to the poor, and picked up your cross and followed the way of Christ’s life?
Mat 19:16-26 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? (17) And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (18) He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, (19) Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (20) The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? (21) Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. (22) But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. (23) Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. (24) And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (25) When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? (26) But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
“The speaker is John. The speaker John is referring to Christ. The speaker John is nether quoting Christ, nor referring to what He said. The speaker John is simply stating what he believes.
You are the one that cut and pasted this verse alone to support the claim of sola fide. I simply pointed out that it contradicts what God said about the matter.”
Joh 3:10-21 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? (11) Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. (12) If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? (13) And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (14) And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: (15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. (16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (17) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (18) He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (19) And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. (20) For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. (21) But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
This is Christ speaking from start to finish. And it does not contradict what Christ wrote. I already demonstrated that the one in contradiction is you. Scripture interprets scripture.
I believe the quote ends at verse 15 and John goes on from that point.
"it does not contradict what Christ wrote."
Taken in and of itself it does. When considered with what I wrote it is simply incomplete and considering all that's written in total, sola fide is contradicted and not supported by the evidence.
"Scripture interprets scripture."
Men interpret Scripture. Scipture has no capacity to interpret, or even to comprehend anything.
“I believe the quote ends at verse 15 and John goes on from that point.”
What does it matter what you believe when you have no evidence for it? It is irrational to take one scripture, and deny the one right after that, all just to satisfy a pet heresy. Either way, even the scriptures above verse 15 are against you. What do you suppose it means for Christ to be lifted up as the serpent in the wilderness was lifted up?:
Num 21:8-9 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. (9) And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
This is the image of Christ crucified, who saves all those who look to Him. If you knew the scriptures, you would have said it was John still speaking up one more verse.
—
“Taken in and of itself it does. When considered with what I wrote it is simply incomplete and considering all that’s written in total, sola fide is contradicted and not supported by the evidence.”
And, of course, you utterly ignored my response on the matter, just as you ignore the very words of Christ Himself when they do not suit you.
Gal 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
I never knew them. God said neither the blind man, nor his parents sinned. I believe what God said. If anyone else says they sinned, I will not believe them.
"The context was referring to the cause of his blindness, whether it was a judgment from God or no."
There was no context in the answer regarding whether, or not they sinned. There are 2 answers given, one refers to their "sin" and hte other refers to the reason for the blindness. The answer regarding sin was, per John 9:3, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," the rest of the answer refers to the blindness.
"...as a lawbreaker, he cannot be saved by the law, but only condemned by it. For whosoever lives by the law will be judged according to the law."
Miss that part of the law about loving your neighbor as yourself. Surely those folks that value the things of God and do as those referred to as His sheep in Matt 25 are saved — per the law! And those who "believed" and are referred to as goats therein will not be saved — per the law!
Re: I don't believe it. ("...all men everywhere are depraved in every age and every corner of the globe."
"Whether you believe it or not is immaterial to what scripture teaches, which I already proved soundly."
Matt 12:7 is the law, "If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent." I believe the law is contained in Matt 12:7 and Scripture teaches that is law. BTW, proof only applies to mathematics, all other things are based on evidence. Sola fide is contradicted by the evidence and so is the depravity nonsense.
“There was no context in the answer regarding whether, or not they sinned. There are 2 answers given, one refers to their “sin” and hte other refers to the reason for the blindness. The answer regarding sin was, per John 9:3, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” the rest of the answer refers to the blindness.”
Your ability to hallucinate is profound. Christ was responding directly to His apostle’s question on the source of His blindness. This is the same Christ who in other parts said, ‘Why callest thou me good? Only God is good.” And there are quite a few other scriptures from Christ that make the point very clear.
—
“Miss that part of the law about loving your neighbor as yourself. Surely those folks that value the things of God and do as those referred to as His sheep in Matt 25 are saved — per the law! And those who “believed” and are referred to as goats therein will not be saved — per the law!”
And Christ came to fulfill the law:
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Because men are not righteous by their own works, but are made so by the grace of God. That is why it was necessary to lift Christ up as the serpent in the wilderness was lifted by Moses. You abuse the scriptures when you pick and choose which ones you will believe. Scripture interprets scripture. You cannot ignore 99.99% of it to cling to one. Otherwise, you deny it all.
—
“Matt 12:7 is the law, “If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.” I believe the law is contained in Matt 12:7 and Scripture teaches that is law. BTW, proof only applies to mathematics, all other things are based on evidence. Sola fide is contradicted by the evidence and so is the depravity nonsense.”
Proof applies to all arguments over truth. I notice you did not acknowledge any of the scriptures which directly contradict you, and you did not answer my question about the sins you have committed and Christ’s own statement that if you would be perfect, sell all that you have and follow Him. You are most certainly damned in the sight of God if you are relying on your own perfection to get into heaven.
It means to lift up those things He values, so that all can see, know and understand what it is that folks should value to gain salvation.
"And, of course, you utterly ignored my response on the matter"
No. None of the evidence you presented supports sola fide in consideration of the fundamental statements from God Himself on the matter. As I pointed out, God demands more.
“It means to lift up those things He values, so that all can see, know and understand what it is that folks should value to gain salvation.”
Oh okay, so it has nothing to do with dying on the cross for the sins of mankind, being resurrected, and ascending to the right hand of the Father till all enemies are made His footstool. To believe this you have to deny not only a great deal of what Christ Himself said, but that of the Apostles and even the Old Testament prophecies regarding what Messiah would do! You are no Christian.
K.
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.