And Protestants operate under the preconceived premise of "faith alone" and force there understanding of Scripture to agree with it. They are just bound to their traditions as Catholics and also subject to discipline if they depart. How long would a Protestant minister be tolerated teaching the Catholic understanding of Scripture before he would be shown the door? Would I be welcomed to be a regular preacher at your church?
Which affirms what I said, as this [the First Apology of St. Justin Martyr] is not even Scripture, but tradition…
But it is a witness of what the early Christians actually believed. We will not find this disputed for 1500 years until Martin Luther.
… and can vary on the meaning of Real Presence, and Justin see different interpretations, including that of Catholic author William A. Jurgenes, “The change referred to here is the change which takes place when the food we eat is assimilated and becomes part of our own body” (Jurgens W, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, p. 57).
You completely misunderstand Jurgens' footnote. Here is the passage in which the footnote appears:
For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished (20), is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnate Jesus.The footnote that you mention (20) refers to the clause:
… and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished…This is a subordinate clause in the passage. In the original Greek:
ἐξ ἧς αἷμα χαὶ σάρχες χατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶνIn the Anti-Nicene Fathers it is rendered thus:
… and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished …This footnote is not referring to the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus. Indeed, the reality of this latter change is the point that Justin is trying to make, comparing it to Jesus taking on flesh and blood in the Incarnation. Notice the argument of Justin if the main clause is highlighted, allowing us to skip over the two subordinate clauses:
For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, IS the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.Which again shows how quickly the prophecy of Paul began to be fulfilled of men “speaking perverse things” others would follow…
And thus you would have the entire body of Christians forget the truth for 1500 years until a minority of believers rediscovered the truth. And are we to believe that the truth was so completely forgotten at such an early date that there is no record of a protest against it.?
However, what matters is that the literal understanding contradicts Scripture which only speaks of spiritual nourishment as being by hearing/receiving the word of Christ, not even physically eating anything, much less human flesh and blood:
No, this is the literal understanding of Scripture. It is the Protestants who must spiritualize this and many other passages to force the Scriptures to match their preconceived idea of "faith alone".
The reason for their authority being such that what they wrote was received by the Church was because it of the established authority of Scripture which confirmed it, as per conformity in text and in power and in principle. Upon which the church began.
The authority of which Scripture? The gospel message is something that goes beyond the Old Testament, being a new revelation by God. In cannot be the New Testament since the authority of the apostles predates their writings. No, the Church, having been established by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles, was active and alive before the writing of the New Testament. The writings of the New Testament were founded upon the proclamation of the Church, not the other way around.
Rather, you have the cart before the horse, as the reason their was a church was because Scripture preceded it as the assured Word of God and supreme standard for testing and establishing truth claims.
No, it is you who have it backwards. The Church finds its beginnings at Pentecost, before the writings of the New Testament.
And Protestants operate under the preconceived premise of "faith alone" and force there understanding of Scripture to agree with it.
Which is Scriptural if meaning that it is precisely faith alone that appropriates justification before God in conversion, not works of merit, yet not an inert faith, but the kind of faith that effects works, and which faith-in-action justifies/vindicates one as being a truly saved believer.
Otherwise James is contradicting both Moses and Paul, since both state "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." (Romans 4:3; Gn. 15:6) Which was even before circumcision, and nothing is said by them about Abraham first being counted righteousness due to offering up Issac years later, (Gn. 22) which a casual reading of James can seem to infer.
Many RC theologians understand that the Epistles of both Apostles deal with different subjects, and without direct relation to the other. Yet they do not go far enough, as "works of the law" encompasses all systems of justification by one's own works earning it.
But as a prophet is known by God as a prophet before his prophecies see fulfillment, so God see the faith in the heart than will effect works, and counts such as righteousness then, while blessing their obedience of faith which "fulfils" the affirmation that they were righteous, and affirms their status.
Thus faith justifies the Un Godly, and Peter states that Cornelius and co., who was lost, had his heart purified by faith.
But sola fide is typically misunderstood or misrepresented by RCs as meaning works are superfluous, and or that this leaves a man merely whitewashed, neither of which is true. Preaching by Reformers clearly affirmed the necessity of an obedient faith if such claimed to be a believers. ."Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!" [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]
And in conversion one is regenerated to walk in newness of life.
They are just bound to their traditions as Catholics and also subject to discipline if they depart. How long would a Protestant minister be tolerated teaching the Catholic understanding of Scripture before he would be shown the door? Would I be welcomed to be a regular preacher at your church?
Your comparison is based upon a misunderstanding of the issue, which is not that required submission is wrong, but its basis.
Under Rome implicit assent of faith is required for teaching from the sacred magisterium, while even non-infallible teaching is to be believed with Divine and Catholic faith and met with religious submission of will and intellect.
In contrast the Biblical model is stated well by Westminster, " It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word." (Westminster ,CHAPTERs 1, 31)
The key distinction is that qualified submission is consistent with how the church began, which not as per Rome, with assent of mind and will to those who were the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, but while general submission to them was enjoined by the Lord, the church began in dissent from them, based upon Scriptural substantiation by which Christ established His truth claims.
Both a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium and the submission it requires, and leads to the same for the Ordinary magisterium, it not Scriptural. To claim and requite both is a presumption to the place of Deity. Only God is worthy of such.
But it is a witness of what the early Christians actually believed. We will not find this disputed for 1500 years until Martin Luther.
If so (though it is understood that what have available to see only provides a small selection of writings of the Church "Fathers"), and it overall basically seems so, it remains a testimony to how a non-salvific error can be held along with Truth. The Catholic concept and thus infatuation with the Eucharist based on the use of words in the gospels which elsewhere often see figurative meaning, is simply not manifest in the rest of the NT.
I myself believed it for many years as a RC after i had actually become born again. As such errors become deeper and multiplied, reformation would be required due to deformation.
You completely misunderstand Jurgens' footnote.
I do not see that , despite your efforts to seemingly correct his understanding of the Greek. He is not referring to a translation that says "transmutation," but simply says that the "change of which our blood and flesh is nourished (20), is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnate Jesus," is that “The change referred to here is the change which takes place when the food we eat is assimilated and becomes part of our own body.”
Regardless, Scripture is determinative of Truth, not some post apostolic men who erred in other things, and whom Rome even judges more than theey judge her. Catholic Real Presence theology is definitely wrong and delusional.
And thus you would have the entire body of Christians forget the truth for 1500 years until a minority of believers rediscovered the truth. And are we to believe that the truth was so completely forgotten at such an early date that there is no record of a protest against it.?
Rather, we have the protest in Scripture which Rome is at variance at. Again, you would have a church with NT pastors being titled 'priests" (usually under mandated celibacy) since their primary function is dispensing bread and wine they turned into human flesh and blood in order for souls to obtain spiritual and eternal life, which ritual was the source and summit of their faith, around which all else revolved. Thus it is RCs who believe the invisible church is the one true church, as this church is simply not seen in Scripture!
In addition, we see only a small percentage of what CFs are estimated to have written, yet it is evident that men choose erroneous understandings and traditions which took upon a life of their own. The Catholic RP was just one among other demonstrably false teachings (though not precluding salvation), and a arrogant and increasingly corrupt and immoral Roman church which finally required a split. Which context most RCs are ignorant of.
No, this is the literal understanding of Scripture.
Mere assertion, while if the absolute imperative requirement of Jn. 6:53,54 is literal, then no Prot can be saved who denies the RP, contrary to modern Rome (if not ancient).
The authority of which Scripture? The gospel message is something that goes beyond the Old Testament, being a new revelation by God. In cannot be the New Testament since the authority of the apostles predates their writings.
Irrelevant, as explained, so why are you even trying this again? What was written is shown to be the supreme standard from the beginning of its writing, to which further conflative and complementary writings were established by and added to. .
No, the Church, having been established by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles, was active and alive before the writing of the New Testament. The writings of the New Testament were founded upon the proclamation of the Church, not the other way around.
Rather, reasserting a refuted polemic will not make something true for Rome or for you. It remains that the authority of an itinerant Preacher and His motley group of disciples was not established by those who sat in the seat of Moses, or by mail-order ordination, but as said, it was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and thus the church. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
No, it is you who have it backwards. The Church finds its beginnings at Pentecost, before the writings of the New Testament.
Is this what devotion to Rome does to a otherwise good mind? Just ignore most of the Bible as being the foundation for Pentecost (which is where that also is ordained, and the pouring out of the Spirit and for the church, of writings Peter thus references in Acts 2, so that instead you can to try to support a church which imagines an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is the assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. Which fallacious premise renders her claims to be the one true church to be fallacious as unScriptural.
The more this is argued against, then the more the error of Rome has been exposed. Arguments for her are arguments against her.