Posted on 01/24/2015 8:33:46 AM PST by RnMomof7
**What was the purpose of the law?**
Paul calls it the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Which it does. After God brought the Israelites out of Egypt with ‘a mighty hand’, he gave them the law, that he placed in the tabernacle (made by men, but to God’s design, and is a shadow of the heavenly). There is so much about the tabernacle that points to Christ, that it would take days for me to type what I’ve read about it.
“6. Hence the words, says He, which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life. For we have said, brethren, that this is what the Lord had taught us by the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood, that we should abide in Him and He in us. “
If what you said is true, that merely “believe and you have eaten already” is how we are to understand Augustine every time he says “eat” (or drink) the Body and Blood of Chrst, then all he’s saying here (in tractate 27, para 6) is “ For we have said, brethren, that this is what the Lord had taught us [by believing in Him], that we should abide in Him and He in us. “
Really? You think that’s all the Saint is saying there and elsewhere in similar passages? He can’t be saying that “by eating his flesh and drinking his blood” we “abide in him”? In other words, he can’t be saying what he plainly seems to say?
Really?
Amazing.
The former must be read spiritually, and the latter is impossible, because Augustine says "Why ready teeth and stomach? Believe and you have eaten already." Thus faith precedes any possible physical eating, and therefore can't refer to the eucharist at all. You say this yourself in your other post, writing "he is not speaking about the Eucharist," not realizing that such an admission confirms my position. But note how you tried to claim that Augustine is not talking about eating Christ, as if he was making some general comment about food, and not giving instructions on how to eat Christ, thus you wrap yourself up in all sorts of trouble, because, quite clearly, Augustine is talking about eating and drinking Christ's body and blood.
But this is incompatible with the view that Christ is eaten through the Eucharist, confirmed partly even out of your own mouth. If Augustine is talking about Christ's body and blood, you can't claim that eating the eucharist is necessary to eat Christ. These things must be entirely exclusive, otherwise you contradict Augustine's words: "Believe and you have eaten already."
Thus my explanation of the difference between Augustine's teachings on the eucharist and his teachings on eating Christ through faith remain unmolested and supported by the other quotations I already made. I see no reason to accept it because not only does reading more of Augustine than the quote "believe and you have eaten already" show more than a passing importance to the Eucharist,
Well, if we read MORE of Augustine, my position only gets stronger. I've only shown you a small fraction of the quotations I have. Do you want the rest?
Really what? You write this after I already gave post explaining Augustine's theology on the eucharist. Naturally, I am not guilty of over-simplification. You are.
I have the rest and have posted its entirety repeatedly, which you have never done. I rest on that. True context. All of what he said (on John). All of it.
Again, I don’t recognize your authority to define Augustine’s writings.
You’ve abandoned the Bible already. That’s not what it says and you have to take the entire scripture as a whole. You can’t pick and choose what supports a position.
What did Christ say about baptism?
What is the Great Commission and why was it given?
How do you anoint with oil for the sick?
What you said.
LOL astounding! Accuse me of exactly that which you are guilty. It's not I who "over simplify" his writings, *you* do when you insist that every time he speaks of "eating and drinking the Body and Blood of Jesus" he's really just speaking of belief.
Go ahead and insist yet again the mere phrase "believe and you have eaten already" applies to every instance the Saint speaks of eating His body, even in writings that are not from these Tractates! And then you can turn around and somehow claim you don't actually believe the Eucharist is a mere symbol, like you did upthread with some serious handwaving, saying in effect "it's a symbol when it's not real, and it's real when it's not a symbol" or some other John Kerry-ish logic. Go ahead. I've got to go to bed.
Well, whether you accept my authority or not, does not change that my argument is unassailable-- it being the obvious reading of the text. Not even the Pope can make an "already" and "teeth and stomach" disappear from the text. This is now why you flee to "authority," because, contrary to your claims, you have not solved the enigma that haunts you, which can only be resolved when we jettison modern Romish theology-- but in doing so we have to concede that Augustine's theology on the eucharist contradicts Romish theology, and is thus not a less sophisticated version of transubstantiation, but a different doctrine altogether.
But since you were earlier arguing that defeating you on transubstantiation isn't enough to show that Augustine represents us Reformed, or as you put it, he was not "proto-protestant" would you like to move on to another doctrine?
Does the Roman Catholic Church teach that God works equally in all men, or at least draws all men in some way, to move them to repentance and to salvation? And can you provide the scripture texts that the Church uses to prove this? I'd rather you do it than me.
But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
Galatians 3:1-29 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
It was only when the self-assured religious and self-declared pious men started fiddling with the gospel that perverted and accursed versions started appearing. God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. In order to be saved we must admit our utter inability to save ourselves and deserve eternal separation from God because of our sins. We come to the throne of grace and fall upon the mercy of God who saves us by His undeserved grace. Our part is receiving the gift of eternal life by faith - believing that He has done and will do what He said He would. No one may boast in His sight. It is ALL by His grace. All those to whom God has revealed the good news understood and understand this and it is STILL the truth.
Poor conclusion using these verses. You absolutely need faith, but that’s the first step toward the ordination of baptism. Baptism is required and stated as so by Christ himself.
Galatians is a letter written to Jewish converts confused over Church policy. Paul clarifies this forcefully. It isn’t the [Mosaic] Law that saves, it’s been replaced and superseded by Jesus’ Atoning Sacrifice. It’s a continuation of the conversation found in John 6:28-29.
The Greek is great: What works must we work to work the works of God.
http://biblehub.com/john/6-28.htm
Christ’s answer is telling: http://biblehub.com/john/6-29.htm
The Weymouth NT conveys the idiomatic meaning the best:
“This,” replied Jesus, “is above all the thing that God requires—that you should be believers in Him whom He has sent.”
His audience is general. The entire chapter is valuable for learning as it distinguishes Jesus Christ from God the Father. It’s reference to cannibalism, eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood, would have been an offense to their ears. Even his disciples find it hard. He’s essentially instituting the regular Sunday Sacrament.
You cannot forget the audience when reading the Scriptures. So unless you’re a Jewish convert to Christianity confused about the role of Mosaic Law, then Galatians cannot tell you anything about the works needed for salvation. It starts with faith, but Baptism is the first step there.
How do you use oil to anoint the sick?
Are you unaware that Augustine's comments are WAAAAYYY past copyright restrictions and there are numerous places where he is referenced? However, GPH actually DID post the reference of Augustine. Are you expecting that they all have to be HTML linked now? It appears that you would rather nitpick over word spelling and footnotes than deal with the actual topics.
This is simply and obviously because the only "authority" any one person has to make such a determination either comes from a grounding in the teachings of a Church with authority that is historically valid (traced back to Christ) or a community of people who decide for themselves when a Father teaches something "Scriptually true".
Your 'Church's' history if rife with forged documents and lies from one end to the other...Your religion is no authority on any thing...Least of all the scriptures...You wasted a lot of ink in this post...
No interpretation necessary...In fact, no interpretation allowed...It's just a matter of what it says and believing it...
You need the rock of revelation and the authority it brings to succeed.
All the while the the God of the bible you claim is insufficient says you are wrong...Curious that, eh???
BTW, what’s the method of anointing for the sick?
You douse the head with x-tra virgin olive oil and pray to Mary???
AHhhh...
The broad brush called SOME...
Iscool: All the while the the God of the bible you claim is insufficient says you are wrong...Curious that, eh???
The entire Bible was received by revelation. There is no Biblical precedent for God's word/knowledge not to be received by revelation. Each book of the Bible individually received by revelation; that's the history of the Bible. At no point does sacred scripture state that revelation has ceased or will ever cease for God's Church. Christ himself emphatically states the opposite to Peter and to us. Revelation, prophetic and angelic, is the Christian expectation and standard, even in our day.
1010RD: BTW, what’s the method of anointing for the sick?
Iscool: You douse the head with x-tra virgin olive oil and pray to Mary???
You shouldn't mock the mother of our Lord. She is a special and unique vessel to house our Lord, Jesus Christ the son of the Living God. God chose her and it's foolishness, unchristian and ungodly to make a mock of God's choices. At the same time it is a violation of God's commandments to give our devotion to anyone other than God. I would not pray to Mary, but to Heavenly Father in Jesus' name as Christ himself taught us.
My point, and you've proven it, is that although James 5:14 clearly states that the Christian expectation is that the elders of the Church of Jesus Christ can anoint with oil for the blessing of the sick. The blessing is for physical ailments, but also for the forgiveness of sins (missing the mark). Using the Bible alone you cannot know how to do this ordinance. The Christian expectation is that Christ's true Church will contain that information by revelation. The Bible alone and without continuing revelation is insufficient.
Faith can be lost, so this statement is untrue. Continued faith, though, is required for all progress toward God. Paul's faith converted him on the Road to Damascus. That same faith continues in our good works. As you've stated it's the natural response to Charity. The goal is godliness. We are called to perfection.
Nonetheless, baptism is a necessary condition for salvation. It all begins with faith, but you must be baptized. For that you need authority and for authority you need continuing revelation. That's my point, as well as the Bible's.
BTW, how is a proper anointing conducted per James 5:14?
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.