Posted on 01/24/2015 8:33:46 AM PST by RnMomof7
>>This narrows such candidates to the Catholic and Orthodox churches already.<<<p
No, it does not. It’s only by the words of those organizations that they believe themselves to be the interpreters of scripture. Scripture itself show them to be wrong. Scripture says that all true believers have the Holy Spirit as a teacher and counsellor. That and the fact that the Catholic Church relies on proven spurious documentation is cause enough to regard them in error. Add to that the belief in the assumption of Mary which didn’t even surface until 100s of years after the passing of the apostles and it’s easy to see they are NOT the “church” Christ was talking about.
You are referring to this quote from your link:
"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)
Augustine is not speaking here literally of the Eucharist, but of Christ, as he says in other places that the symbol only bares similarities with the real thing, but is not the real thing. He did not believe in transubstantiation. He held to suprasubstantiation, that Christ is spiritually present in the Lord's Supper within the faith of the believer; nor did he hold that the act of eating the symbol was what saves, but rather whoever believes in Christ is saved, even before eating or drinking anything:
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. (Augustine, Tractate 25)
The eucharist, for Augustine, was a spiritual communion with Christ which calls us to cherish unity with the body (for we also are the "bread and wine"), to appreciate Christ's sacrifice and to look towards heaven for our future blessings.
I have a large number of quotations to back every statement I have made here up, if you ask me to.
You don't have to use Sola Scriptura any more then Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, or any other religion. Just don't claim to be the ekklesia that Christ instituted and the apostles taught.
Cynical Bear's interpretation of Scripture itself show them to be wrong.
Fixed it for you. You're welcome.
Great work!
Bible already proves it...It's not in there...And if it happened, it would be in there...And if you want to claim it happened after the bible was written, Mary would have been long dead of old age...
Second, you would have to prove that the assumption had happened already by the time Galatians was written. Many think it did not. Third, you would have to prove the assumption itself rather than the authority to teach it is part of the Gospel.
We don't have to prove anything...We don't have to prove Mary was not assumed to heaven any more than we have to prove that Jesus was not a homosexual...
And we know that because Jesus preached against homosexuality and in Jesus there was no sin...
And we know Mary was not assumed to heaven because it is appointed for all men/women to die and then the judgment...And in the two cases that were the exception to the rule, God told us about it...
How about you prove that John the Baptist did not communicate with aliens from the Orion Constellation...Or how about prove that the Apostle Paul did not wear Rebok shoes...
The reality is, one of you guys has to prove that Mary did get assumed to heaven for there to be any legitimacy...
Well by all means post them here...It will be the first the world has ever seen them...
After the apostles died, was the gospel hopelessly lost until the Reformation?
From your selections (emphasis added):
“One person has defined Church History as the story of the loss and recovery of the Gospel. …It was apparent that the Gospel was nearly lost during the times of the Middle Ages.”
“Tragically, this Patristic understanding was lost during the Medieval times and only recovered by Martin Luther and others at the time of the Reformation… As the study of Church History is the study of the loss and recovery of the Gospel…”
Your analysis is spot-on if the apostles had lived until the middle ages.
“I don’t have to prove the apostles did not teach the assumption of Mary.”
Sure you do. Since orthodox Christians before Protestantism reared its ugly heretical head believed it, yes, you do.
“I don’t believe she was.”
What you believe on the matter isn’t the issue.
“There is nothing in scripture that says I need to believe that to be part of the ekklesia of Christ.”
There’s nothing in the Bible about sola scriptura yet you believe that.
“The Catholic Church says Catholics must believe that. It is therefore the responsibility of the Catholic Church to show the apostles taught that the assumption of Mary is necessary.”
Not using sola scriptura - that’s a Protestant heresy.
“Why do I need to prove that? Nothing in Matthew is contradicted in any of the other books.”
Nothing in scripture contradicts the assumption of Mary either. Also, YOU could write a book that is not contradicted by scripture. Does that mean it is inspired?
“If you can show where Matthew contradicts any of the other writers let me know and we can discuss it.”
So, you will fail - as expected of course - to show that Matthew wrote an inspired gospel. Thus, sola scriptura logically falls apart.
“Would you do the same for let’s say the book of Tobit?”
Do what?
“So show where the Catholic Church refutes what is in it.”
Read up on the subject. And why would the Church even notice one publication in America from 1909?
“Mormans and Muslims have a sola scriptura belief? Seriously?”
Much as Protestants profess - with the usual caveat that that shifts to completely subjective selectivity whenever they feel like. Protestants act the same way. Ask any Protestant to show you even one verse that says Matthew ever wrote an inspired gospel and suddenly he will run to any other issue they can thrown in the conversation.
No interpretation needed. Paul states clearly in scripture that if it wasn’t taught by them the teachings was to be considered accursed. The Catholic Church teaches many things they can’t prove the apostles taught.
Not my error.. but the error of an RC poster that said the whole bible was the gospel.. So tell me what is the gospel that Jesus preached ?
YEP
“Like I said. Show any errors in Matthew and we will talk about it.”
No, show it is inspired. A document can have no errors and still not be inspired.
“But you need to do the same with Tobit.”
Nope. I wouldn’t need to do it for any book of the Bible. You need to stand by sola scriptura, however, if you’re going to preach it here and show where the Bible says Matthew wrote a gospel. See, in the end, all that is possible is that Protestants believe in a false doctrine (sola scriptura) which is unworkable and self-refuting and they are hypocrites because they insist others use sola scriptura while they themselves believe in numerous things not proved by scripture (e.g. the Matthew wrote an inspired book).
“Please show where anyone made the claim that any verse condemns abortion by name please.”
Are you saying the Bible does not condemn abortion? Do you condemn abortion? If so, where in the Bible is abortion condemned by name for you believe in sola scriptura you say?
That wasn't "orthodox" Christians. Catholicism is a perversion of what "orthodox" Christians believed. The apostles were the "orthodox" Christians. The Catholic Church has added to and polluted what they taught.
Where to start.. if all scripture is not true Rome has a problem because it claims its authority from it..
Making doctrine from the silence of scripture is dangerous.. that how cults are born ... maybe Scientology is right after all scripture does not say Jesus was NOT a space alien..and the womb of Mary was actually a space ship..
How do you discern spiritual truth from lies??
“Your analysis is spot-on if the apostles had lived until the middle ages.”
No, my “analysis” (I made none actually) is just spot on. Period.
“The Reformation’s Recovery of the Gospel” http://www.credomag.com/2011/11/04/the-reformations-recovery-of-the-gospel/
Mormons:
http://www.mormon.org/beliefs/restoration
“The myth of a Protestant “recovery” of the Gospel was strong in our church. “http://chnetwork.org/2012/02/a-protestant-historian-discovers-the-catholic-church-conversion-story-of-a-david-anders-ph-d/
No they do not ... but Rome has told them it is bad..
What an interesting comment. Matthew is scripture and would have to contradict other scripture show that it wasn't. Sola Scriptura in no way "falls apart" as Sola Scriptura refers to books like Matthew.
That is correct.. there was no “doctrine” on that at that time ..
“That wasn’t “orthodox” Christians.”
Yes, it was.
“Catholicism is a perversion of what “orthodox” Christians believed.”
No. Protestantism is a perversion of orthodoxy. That’s why no one ever heard of it until almost 1500 after Christianity began.
“The apostles were the “orthodox” Christians.”
The first ones. They passed on the orthodox faith to us. Your religious ancestors, all heretical Protestants, gave up that faith and embraced the new beliefs no one taught before in orthodoxy. That’s why even Protestants like Alister E. McGrath can talk about a novum being introduced to soteriology by Luther.
“The Catholic Church has added to and polluted what they taught.”
No. Protestants created a new gospel that is automatically false and have attacked the true faith ever since.
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.