Posted on 06/18/2017 2:09:43 PM PDT by narses
Extensive reproof above. Thanks be to God for what is good.
A great labor of love for those with stone ears.
There IS a reason that the Commandments are the first thing that we Lutherans tend to teach when Confirmation time rolls around.
It’s just that we don’t find salvation in them. That doesn’t mean they’re not VERY important.
1: To curb evil and sinful impulses.
2: To show us ourselves and how much we need Jesus.
3: To give us a guide through life.
We believe what the Bible says, after all. It contains the Prophets and the Law and the writing of the Apostles.
Scripture says that salvation is because of grace through faith, not works. There is that oft-quoted passage in James, though, and we believe that as well. But because of the seeming contradiction, we need to look elsewhere in Scripture to try to figure out what it means.
So, just to make things clear about what LCMS Lutherans and I myself believe, at least re: salvation.
Salvation is by God’s grace alone. That grace is given/shown to us in the Word and in Holy Baptism and Holy Communion. By faith, we believe in that grace, and by that grace, that undeserved kindess, we are given salvation.
But by faith, we also try to live our earthly lives according to the word of God. A faith, a belief in the promises of the Lord that does not then try to please the Lord is an empty faith—which is what James was speaking of when he wrote about faith. He defined it himself earlier in his writing. When James writes of faith, he defines it as the kind of ‘faith’ that just says, ‘Jesus exists.’ Not ‘I trust in the Lord.’
Additionally, without Christ, all our good works are as filthy rags anyways.
Come the return of Jesus, we will give an account of our works. Those who have faith will have done good works, and because God sees us through Jesus, even the filthy rags that were our righteous works before will be seen as good works.
Those who have the foundation of faith without works will still inherit eternal life, but the rewards of such will be lesser than those whose earthly life was full of faithful work.
Anyways, I’m sure we can discuss that, but I’ve gotta run and get some errands done.
The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter XVI Clement (150-215 AD) goes into great detail about the use of scripture and tradition. The chapter title is Scripture the Criterion by Which Truth and Heresy Are Distinguished. He states, in part, the following:
But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin."
Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth. ...
Now all men, having the same judgment, some, following the Word speaking, frame for themselves proofs; while others, giving themselves up to pleasures, wrest Scripture, in accordance with their lusts. And the lover of truth, as I think, needs force of soul. For those who make the greatest attempts must fail in things of the highest importance; unless, receiving from the truth itself the rule of the truth, they cleave to the truth. But such people, in consequence of falling away from the right path, err in most individual points; as you might expect from not having the faculty for judging of what is true and false, strictly trained to select what is essential. For if they had, they would have obeyed the Scriptures.
...For we have, as the source of teaching, the Lord, both by the prophets, the Gospel, and the blessed apostles, "in divers manners and at sundry times," leading from the beginning of knowledge to the end. But if one should suppose that another origin was required, then no longer truly could an origin be preserved.
He, then, who of himself believes the Scripture and voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is rightly [regarded] faithful. Certainly we use it as a criterion in the discovery of things....For we may not give our adhesion to men on a bare statement by them, who might equally state the opposite. But if it is not enough to state the opinion, but if what is stated must be confirmed, we do not wait for the testimony of men, but we establish the matter that is in question by the voice of the Lord, which is the surest of all demonstrations, in which knowledge those who have merely tasted the Scriptures are believers...
Clement has far more to say in this chapter-these are only some brief highlights. As Clement points out from the above passage; 1) people were adding to the scripture (note with Mary), 2) people would take passages of scripture and frame heretical beliefs from them, or 3) they use scripture to justify their actions rather than letting scripture expose their corruption.
Most importantly, Clement makes very clear that a truly faithful person will be guided by scripture and the Holy Spirit. "Apostolic tradition" to Clement was the teachings of the apostles. Clement states:
He, then, who of himself believes the Scripture and voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is rightly [regarded] as faithful.
Hear here!
I agree with you here. Our current pope is a heretic. But the Church has survived heresies in the past. It will survive the 500 year protestant heresy.
We have Christ's promise:
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Mat 6:18
Heh.
Says the man who can’t even answer a challenge about the anti-Scriptural basis of his own church.
Who can’t even bring himself to read the entire challenge without spouting off a talking point that was ALREADY addressed in the very post that he was replying to.
That’s hilarious.
The verses in question, from your Post #133 (1 Cor. 11:25-27; version?):
“In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.”
Here are the positions that seem to me to be your positions:
========
1. Post #133:
. . (a) . . . Communion is, yes, the real Body and Blood of Christ.
. . (b) And also bread and wine . . .
. . (c) . . . because that’s ALSO what Jesus says they are.
. . (d) How? No idea, . . .
. . (e) . . . but Scripture is our source of truth, . . .
. . (f) . . . and that’s what it says.
. . (g) . . . you CAN make an argument solely from Scripture about the whole Communion thing.
=========
2. Post #142:
. . (a) Scripture states clearly that it is both.
. . (b) . . . because Jesus rose from the dead . . . being . . . God . . .
. . (c) . . . he laid his stamp of approval on it . . .
. . (d) Therefore . . I believe it.
. . (e) Don’t ask me how it’s true because I don’t know; . . .
. . (f) . . . I only know it is.
======
Query 1: Are the above not your positions?
Query 2: Is stating them thus equivalent to putting words in your mouth, or did you not submit these positions?
=======
3. Post #233: . . (a) I... don’t think that we quite understand each other.
. . (b) You are arguing against positions that I do not, in fact, hold.
. . (c) All I’m saying at the moment is that Jesus was being literal when he said, paraphrased, “This is my body” and “This is my blood.”
. . (d) And that Paul confirms it.
. . (e) I have no idea where you got everything else you posted.
. . (f) . . . so much of it seems to be trying to put words into my mouth.
=======
I thought I completely understood what you said, so my reply in Post #141 was directed to your points in #133, namely 1. (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) above, implying a refutation of 1. (g), to wit.
If you did not understand what I said in that post, why did you answer it in #143 as if you did?
In Post #202, perhaps I thought you had sufficient Biblical background for you to appreciate that your administration of Communion presumes that it is a re-sacrifice of Jesus. I also took it for granted that your training had taught you that one of Jesus' great aims in teaching was to accustom his students (and subsequently also us) to grasp figurative-literal language as well as plain-literal language in understanding literal interpretation of the then-existing Scripture, and to differentiate the two modes. His training vehicle was explaining to them the meaning of His parables, for of this we find in the Scriptures:
Mt. 13:34 AV:
"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: . . ."
Mk. 4:34 AV
"But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples."
From the absence of negative reaction of His inner circle to Jesus' claims in Jn. 6:53,61, and 66, as well as at the initiation of the Remembrance memorial, we must conclude that His disciples were well-accustomed to dealing with the significance of symbolic spiritual meanings, and not be offended that the bread did not literally taste like flesh meat, and the wine still tasted like wine and not warm human blood. Their ability to think in abstract figurative terms was such that they were not too surprised at this new ordinance, and in the symbolic terms in which it was couched.
In contrast, the general audience was not used to dealing with figures of speech in explaining Bible truths, for they saw and saw and did not perceive, they heard and heard but did not understand, lest they be saved without faith. These hearers had no appreciation of symbolism in communicationg spiritual precepts.
And so, apparently neither have you been trained sufficiently in hermeneutics and logic, or you wouldn't be saying that we don't understand each other. Even then, it is not clear to you that I do understand you, but either you do not comprehend what I wrote to address your viewpoint, or you do not accept my positions as valid debating arguments.
Is this not so?
(No offense intended, just an observation of the status of our communication and interpretive methods.)
The bottom line is that, through correct interpretation methods, the facts must be that the bread of the memorial supper is not the actual flesh of Jesus' body; and the wine of that ritual is only an emblem of the Blood shed on the Cross, not actually Jesus' exsanguinated Blood; and your Lutheran position on it is not acceptable within the principles and boundaries of accepted literal interpretation. It is arrived at by an out-of-bounds punting of the passages involved.
You go ahead and say that the tokens of the Sacrifice are both real (actual flesh and blood) and at the same really bread and grape juice, which is nonsense. (For instance, the alcoholic content of table wine absolutely rules it out from ever being considered as represented as human blood, let alone being the same as it through some kind of theosophical contortions.) Then you say that that is true that they concurrently exist as being identical (2.(e) above), but to not ask you how because you do NOT know, then immediately aver that (f) you DO know! Isn't that an unreasonable request, and a wholly illogical proposition?
IMHO.
I’m sorry, you are STILL seriously misinterpreting what I say.
The problem that I had with your post is that you are accusing me of Communion being a re-sacrifice of Jesus, which is not the case.
And if you remove that, far as I can tell, the rest of your arguments from an earlier post need to be either significantly altered or don’t matter.
So can we take this one step at a time if you really want to talk this through? Because these long counter-posts feel like my beliefs are getting replaced by straw men.
The only other reply I’ll make here is that I spent five of the last eight long, LONG years learning hermeneutics, Biblical exegesis, and languages, and quite frankly I find it kind of insulting that you’d call me uneducated just because I come to a different conclusion than you after all that study.
Oh good. I appreciate that I grab all kinds of attention.
When I’m in my back yard, mosquitos also get my attention.
And THAT was truly a work of love!
Says the man who got multiple threads locked or yanked because of his childish behavior.
Hilarious.
This opening paragraph is a work of fiction. But I agree that Christians don’t need the Catholic ORG Magicsteeringthem. There are some nice reference books in the Vatican vaults though ...
This opening paragraph is a work of fiction. But I agree that Christians don’t need the Catholic ORG Magicsteeringthem. There are some nice reference books in the Vatican vaults though ...
It wasn’t I who complained to the moderator.
Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.
When a lie is most effective it has the false intermingled with truth. The last sentence in that paragraph is nonsensical.
It is not the object. It is The Holy Spirit moving through the hem of Jesus’ garment, or Paul’s napkin. It is God’s Spirit. God is the power.
These objects were not kept and used repeatedly over time for healing, or they would have been worshiped. God doesn’t want that.
Remember the bronze serpent that was lifted up in the wilderness? The Israelites were worshiping it because at one time it had been used by The LORD to heal people, as a types of Jesus Christ, when He would be lifted up for our forgiveness and healing. The word “Nehushtan” means “a thing of brass”.
This is written for our learning and application. We must never pass the line and worship anything material, or even give it undue “veneration”. It isn’t necessary. What is always necessary is to worship God Himself, and only Him.
_____________________________________________________________
2Ki 18:1
Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign.
2:Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah.
3:And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did.
4:He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.
The simple symbols are used so that anyone, anywhere, can do this REMEMBRANCE showing the death Jesus went through for us until He comes for us.
Where two or more are gathered in His name, there is He in the midst of them.
That is a real promise fulfilled by Spiritual means, not physical presence.
I have been in prayer where His Presence was sensed SPIRITUALLY by each one present. Spiritual things are not discerned by the carnal man, they must be spiritually discerned.
The carnal man eats and drinks but his spirit starves.
HERE is wisdom.
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.