Posted on 01/24/2015 8:33:46 AM PST by RnMomof7
Addendum to my last post.
>>Tobit story is a prefigurement to the symbolism of fish in Christianity.<<
I suppose you can just keep making stuff up and continue on with that witchcraft stuff.
Define sola scriptura.. and please tell me what the gospel was that Jesus preached
Except the Apostles practiced it..
Like sola fide which is no where in scripture - except where it is said to be wrong (James 2)
Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"
Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;"
Rom. 9:30, "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;"
Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."
Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.
Gal. 3:5-6, "Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness
." Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."
Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 9Not by works, lest any man should boast."
Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."
And now to James.. :)
No where does Jesus say or imply that one is saved by works.
The book of James was written to a converted church , not heathens seeking salvation . It tells them how their conversion is seen by the unsaved world . It is not about becoming saved or being saved. It is about the fruit of your salvation.
Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
This is an amplification of the teaching of Jesus that we know a tree by the fruit it bears. It is how we know the saved from the unsaved. It does not declare that the man has faith ...but that he SAYS he has faith.
This addresses a hollow profession of faith , not a saving one .Can a hollow profession save him? NO, any more than works can save.This scripture says to the church that this faith is non existent , it is dead.
The bible is clear that it is God that gives the faith and it is God that ordains the works of the saved
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Hbr 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Phl 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.
To 144
First for the reader of our "chat" the works of St. Augustine you refer to are here.
Secondly, here the quote you imagine is so devastating for the Catholic teaching is in fact not so devastating as I have explained to you before, but again, for those not on that thread: That quote is referring to John 6:29, "“Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent".
Here then we can clearly see the context that St. Augustine is speaking in, which is that FIRST, belief in Jesus is required for Salvation! When the Saint speaks "believe, and you have eaten already", he is NOT speaking about the Eucharist, rather, what Augustine is saying here is that the Jews must seek after Jesus FIRST, BELIEVE in Him FIRST, not seeking after any CARNAL "bread" that just filled their bellies. Remember, they (the crowd) were just filled by the miracle of the loaves and the fishes at this time, and Jesus knew that they were following Him around because they sought a man who would always do this for them (John 6:26).
So Saint Augustine, in the quote you continue to hammer, is himself hammering home the importance of faith in Jesus, a faith so important to obtain that it even supplants the carnal need for food. That is what is meant by that quote, "believe and ye have eaten already".
HOW can I say that, well, it's quite simple, because of what he (Augustine) goes on to say about the entire chapter. Specifically, let's take what he says about John 5:53. Paragraph 15 of Tractate 26:
"But that which they ask, while striving among themselves, namely, how the Lord can give His flesh to be eaten, they do not immediately hear: but further it is said to them, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you will have no life in you.” How, indeed, it may be eaten, and what may be the mode of eating this bread, you are ignorant of; nevertheless, “except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you will not have life in you.” He spoke these words, not certainly to corpses, but to living men. Whereupon, lest they, understanding it to mean this life, should strive about this thing also, He going on added, “Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life.” Wherefore, he that eats not this bread, nor drinks this blood, has not this life; for men can have temporal life without that, but they can noways have eternal life. He then that eats not His flesh, nor drinks His blood, has no life in him; and he that eats His flesh, and drinks His blood, has life. This epithet, eternal, which He used, answers to both. It is not so in the case of that food which we take for the purpose of sustaining this temporal life. For he who will not take it shall not live, nor yet shall he who will take it live. For very many, even who have taken it, die; it may be by old age, or by disease, or by some other casualty. But in this food and drink, that is, in the body and blood of the Lord, it is not so. For both he that does not take it has no life, and he that does take it has life, and that indeed eternal life. And thus He would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the fellowship of His own body and members, which is the holy Church in his predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified saints and believers. Of these, the first is already effected, namely, predestination; the second and third, that is, the vocation and justification, have taken place, are taking place, and will take place; but the fourth, namely, the glorifying, is at present in hope; but a thing future in realization. The sacrament of this thing, namely, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared on the Lord's table in some places daily, in some places at certain intervals of days, and from the Lord's table it is taken, by some to life, by some to destruction: but the thing itself, of which it is the sacrament, is for every man to life, for no man to destruction, whosoever shall have been a partaker thereof."
Now there is the teaching you are also claiming, namely,
And thus He would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the fellowship of His own body and members, which is the holy Church in his predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified saints and believers.
This though is precisely why I have no trouble saying that St. Augustine does NOT teach "Transubstantiation" as is taught by the Catholic Church. BUT, this distinction does not matter!
While the Saint doesn't teach what the Church teaches today exactly, he CLEARLY teaches that the "Body of Christ" is something REAL, and not a mere symbol (he just says it's the Body of Christ on Earth, i.e, the Church and the unity thereof). Again, that's immaterial for the Catholic position, but certainly weakens any claim of symbolism, no matter how distantly linked to a "sacramental" reality.
When Augustine speaks of the eucharist, its benefits are something other than for salvation, but always for our sanctification.
Certainly for sanctification, but ALSO for salvation, again from paragraph 15 of the same tractate:
"The sacrament of this thing, namely, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared on the Lord's table in some places daily, in some places at certain intervals of days, and from the Lord's table it is taken, by some to life, by some to destruction: but the thing itself, of which it is the sacrament, is for every man to life, for no man to destruction, whosoever shall have been a partaker thereof."
There are many other quotes like that in these Tractates that show St. Augustine believed the Eucharist was necessary for Salvation.
Augustine describes the Eucharist as a "sacrifice" in the sense that it represents the sacrifice that occurred "once and for all" on the cross, in the same way we say that Christ "rises again tomorrow" on Easter, even though it occurred a long time ago.
And that disagrees or disproves the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist in exactly what way? The Church teaches that yes the Eucharist is in memorial of Christ, that it is the same sacrifice "once and for all". But it doesn't just "represent", but also IS that same sacrifice, which is what makes it a sacrament, i.e, something that IS what it ALSO represents. (that's the definition of a sacrament)
I still maintain one can't "sacrifice" something that's not real, certainly not in order to offer something pleasing to God. Bottom line, since you already acknowledge the Eucharist is a sacrifice (according to St. Augustine) then you must also acknowledge St. Augustine believed it to have a reality to it, a spiritual reality certainly, but that doesn't make it any less real. Spiritual realities can be and certainly are as real as any physical reality.
And then they told you what to do to EARN grace ... and what will lose grace.. .. works to earn grace.. define grace for me
What was the purpose of the law?
“I would suggest you read about what God commanded done with that serpent when they began using it”
I have - many times. And it just continues to prove what I said.
“I suppose you can just keep making stuff up and continue on with that witchcraft stuff.”
I supposed you have to just keep making stuff up about witchcraft because you can’t post a logical rejoinder.
“Define sola scriptura..”
No. Protestants can do that on their own.
“and please tell me what the gospel was that Jesus preached”
Are you saying you don’t know it?
“Except the Apostles practiced it..”
Nope.
“The book of James was written to a converted church , not heathens seeking salvation.”
James 2:24 is still James 2:24. The meaning does not change. What changes are Protestant explanations of how James 2:24 doesn’t go against sola fide. Luther knew it did so he essentially cut James from the canon and threatened to throw “Jimmy” into the “stove”.
Isn't it curious that if the church considered her so important that she is never mentioned when other women are? If she was preforming wonderful acts..is it not curious they do not tell us? is it not strange an event like her body being lifted up to heaven is not told for encouragement?
Is it not strange that she needed to be in the upper room to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit with the apostles?
Rome has taken a faithful young girl and made her into a goddess ...
If you say so, then it surely MUST be so.
< /sarc >
LOL
This is what happens when a scripture is out of context..
This was the Sabbath.. watching were the legalistic Pharisees...
Now this is where it gets interesting ...NO WORK was allowed on the Sabbath ..and the Jews forbid spitting into the dirt on Sundays because that made mortar
So Jesus was doing a WORK by spitting and then USING the mud ...
Jesus was defying A LAW OF MEN ..
Now Vladimir.. READ ON a little further
13 They brought to the Pharisees the man who had been blind. 14 Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man’s eyes was a Sabbath. 15 Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. “He put mud on my eyes,” the man replied, “and I washed, and now I see.” 16 Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath
Jesus was showing the uselessness of man made laws
Catholics just do not have a grounding to understand scripture.. could you post the authoritative infallible meaning of the book of James written by the magistrum
You abused your one quotation. Note the parts in bold:
"The sacrament of this thing, namely, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared on the Lord's table in some places daily, in some places at certain intervals of days, and from the Lord's table it is taken, by some to life, by some to destruction: but the thing itself, of which it is the sacrament, is for every man to life, for no man to destruction, whosoever shall have been a partaker thereof."
Augustine is here speaking of the "reality", or "of this thing," which the sacrament represents. The phrase "of which it is the sacrament," is referring to the Lord's Supper, which is the sacrament of "the thing itself." He even says, not long after your quote, distinguishing the "thing" from the "sacrament" of the thing:
"He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him. This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth], but rather does he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgment, because he, being unclean, has presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man takes worthily except he that is pure: of such it is said, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Matthew 5:8"
This mode of speaking for Augustine is consistent with the other quotes I have shown.
It is quite clear that Augustine does not regard anyone eating the sacrament as really eating Christ unto salvation, and he actually says, multiple times in the tractates, that Christ is eaten through faith without the use of teeth and stomach, and differentiates this spiritually eating with the carnal eating, which only represents the former, but is not that thing, nor accomplishes the same thing.
“This is what happens when a scripture is out of context..”
I took NOTHING out of context. Jesus made mud with His spittle. Why He did it doesn’t matter. It only matters that He made use of MUD. That was the point.
“Jesus was defying A LAW OF MEN ..”
With MUD. What part of “He used mud” do you NOT understand?
“Jesus was showing the uselessness of man made laws”
And I was showing that Jesus used mud. And I succeeded. And you just spent an entire post not only beating a dead horse, but the wrong dead horse. How pathetic.
Yep. I think He is STILL showing how useless man made laws are.
Before we continue, why don’t you tell me exactly what you are claiming regarding St. Augustine and the Eucharist. Because to me, you seem to jump around and between he believes it has a spiritual reality, but he also believes it’s just a symbol.
So tell me, do you believe that St. Augustine taught the Eucharist was just a symbol of, or that it was really the Body of Christ?
**Yet neither Paul nor God regard any of that “calorie burning,” otherwise it would have said that Abraham was justified by his works, and thus merited his justification.**
HIS works? Leaving Ur was not his idea. Building altars was not his idea. AFTER Gen.15:6, Abraham offered a sacrifice (which wasn’t his idea), because God commanded it in order for him to receive the promise.
Now, if you are only a spirit being, then the life in the flesh does not apply to you.
We have been given these sinful bodies to dwell in, and God, by his ordinances, tells us how we are to dwell in them, and how we are delivered from their curse.
If you are intent on predestination; that Abraham was going to obey God from the womb, then why was he disobedient at times, going to Egypt, lying about his wife being his wife?
Are our individual sins predestined as well? Are you predestined to deny Acts 2:38 as God’s instruction for rebirth? Do you only follow it’s instruction if you feel that God has imputed that desire in you? Peter orders that EVERY ONE is to follow it/obey it.
**Rom_4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.**
I can guarantee you that the WORKS that Rom. 4:4 refers to is NOT Acts 2:38. For Paul is writing to those that have obeyed Acts 2:38, noting that in the beginning of the epistle he greets those in Rome as ‘saints’. He reminds them in places like Rom. 6:17 about their conversion:
“But God be thanked, that ye WERE the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.”
Are you rejecting God’s grace by dismissing Acts 2:38? It is also God’s grace that he sends preachers to preach the gospel, and instruct souls on how to be born again.
I have read little of Augustine, so I am not aware of his teaching on Acts 2:38. Maybe you know where that might be found.
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.