Are RCC and OC (should through in the Copts just to be fair) Saved?

[DHK]

The bolded part is just you. I'm not skeptical at all. I've been in a similar situation myself but that's another story for another time. I'm not important enough (or rich enough) to worry to much about what I've done in my life being "discovered" by others. But I understand there are people who are. I believe there is power in the word. It's just that I was wondering if there were any other influences. I remember when I first started reading the bible I had difficulty understanding it. I prayed and the lord helped me and ever since then I've grown in my faith and relationship. The reason I wondered about influences is because of your insistance on the secret history of baptist for which no significant academic agrees with. Even looking at Zondervan press release of Christian History shows that there were no secret pre-baptist sects. Everyone who looks at scripture looks at it through goggles of their own experience. So I was just curious.

And what is your definition of "significant academic"? Catholics, I suppose.
Again, I believe you have a biased outlook of history.
No Baptist worth his salt would research history using only one source of information, or one kind of source--revisionist history. There are plenty of Baptist history resources out there. Why do you ignore them over and above Catholic and secular resources that would lead you to a different conclusion.

A simple study of the RCC doctrine in contrast to the Bible would lead you to the conclusion that the RCC is not, never was, and never will be a "Christian Church." Have you listed the doctrines of the RCC and then compared them to the Bible? Have you actually taken the time to do that?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And what is your definition of "significant academic"? Catholics, I suppose.
Again, I believe you have a biased outlook of history.
No Baptist worth his salt would research history using only one source of information, or one kind of source--revisionist history. There are plenty of Baptist history resources out there. Why do you ignore them over and above Catholic and secular resources that would lead you to a different conclusion.

A simple study of the RCC doctrine in contrast to the Bible would lead you to the conclusion that the RCC is not, never was, and never will be a "Christian Church." Have you listed the doctrines of the RCC and then compared them to the Bible? Have you actually taken the time to do that?

No I'm speaking of all Christian Historians and secular historians. Yes Catholics are included but so are Anglicans, Methodist, Non-denominational, Some baptist. Just look around.

And yes I am currently doing just what you are asking. Reviewing the CCC and comparing it to scripture. There are some things I hesitate about others I understand better. But I'm not done yet. Have you picked up a CCC and compared it to scriptures? Also I'm in discourse with my family and preist as well as my pastor (who is a baptist though many may not like the fact he graduated from Gordon Conwell). However, I've other contacts through out the christian plethora of denominations. I'm not done yet. (Its a big book) Outline seems simple enough. Take each aspect of the revised Nicean Creed and expound.

 

[DHK]

What were Martin Luther's 95 Theses, and why did he post them?

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What were Martin Luther's 95 Theses, and why did he post them?

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html

You ommitted the question and smoothly incerted Luther. Luther had issue with abuses and certain understanding of the Church. However, Luther did not freely choose to leave the Catholic Church. And interestingly enough the Catholic church did not object to many of Luther's points posted. In fact the Exsurge Domine (the bull for him to recant) only listed 41 not all 95. The fact is they agreed with 54 points that Luther made.

 

[DHK]

You ommitted the question and smoothly incerted Luther. Luther had issue with abuses and certain understanding of the Church. However, Luther did not freely choose to leave the Catholic Church. And interestingly enough the Catholic church did not object to many of Luther's points posted. In fact the Exsurge Domine (the bull for him to recant) only listed 41 not all 95. The fact is they agreed with 54 points that Luther made.

The points he listed were for debate. However that is a lot of disagreement, nevertheless.

I am not sure what your question was.

Remember, I was alone without any creed or catechism. Try this. Think as an average Catholic would think (or even above average). None of us have any creed (as in Nicene) memorized, nor the Catechism. What we are well acquainted with are those doctrines which affect our daily living.

Living alone, I put myself back into the shoes of my former Catholic self.
I couldn't go to mass. Missing mass was a mortal sin. If I were to die I would go to hell. I had no opportunity to confess my sin to a priest, for there was no priest around. Thus:
1. What was the purpose of the mass, and where is it found in the Bible?
2. What about purgatory: its purpose, where is it in the Bible?
3. What about confession of sin to a priest--why couldn't God forgive my sins, as Christ forgave sins of others in the Bible.
4. I had an assurance of salvation as a Christian; why didn't I have one as a Catholic? Where was this system in the Bible?

6. I prayed (or used to) the rosary. Where in the Bible is praying to Mary? Did anyone pray to Mary in the Bible? Or, anyone else but God and Jesus?
7. As I read the Bible I read that in each and every case a person repented and was baptized, or believed and was baptized. That wasn't so in the RCC. I was baptized as an infant. I was unable to believe or repent. Why baptism as an infant? What was the purpose of that and what was the Biblical precedent?
7. What was the purpose of indulgences? Were they in the Bible?
8. Indulgences were connected to Purgatory? Is it true that I had the power to "pray" someone out of purgatory, or at least shorten their time? Where is an example of that in the Bible?
9. Where are popes mentioned in the Bible.

I just went down a list of those things that affect me in my life. I didn't need a catechism. I was familiar enough with the RCC doctrine to know that these things were wrong and contradicted the Bible.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The points he listed were for debate. However that is a lot of disagreement, nevertheless.

I am not sure what your question was.

Remember, I was alone without any creed or catechism. Try this. Think as an average Catholic would think (or even above average). None of us have any creed (as in Nicene) memorized, nor the Catechism. What we are well acquainted with are those doctrines which affect our daily living.

Living alone, I put myself back into the shoes of my former Catholic self.
I couldn't go to mass. Missing mass was a mortal sin. If I were to die I would go to hell. I had no opportunity to confess my sin to a priest, for there was no priest around. Thus:
1. What was the purpose of the mass, and where is it found in the Bible?
2. What about purgatory: its purpose, where is it in the Bible?
3. What about confession of sin to a priest--why couldn't God forgive my sins, as Christ forgave sins of others in the Bible.
4. I had an assurance of salvation as a Christian; why didn't I have one as a Catholic? Where was this system in the Bible?

6. I prayed (or used to) the rosary. Where in the Bible is praying to Mary? Did anyone pray to Mary in the Bible? Or, anyone else but God and Jesus?
7. As I read the Bible I read that in each and every case a person repented and was baptized, or believed and was baptized. That wasn't so in the RCC. I was baptized as an infant. I was unable to believe or repent. Why baptism as an infant? What was the purpose of that and what was the Biblical precedent?
7. What was the purpose of indulgences? Were they in the Bible?
8. Indulgences were connected to Purgatory? Is it true that I had the power to "pray" someone out of purgatory, or at least shorten their time? Where is an example of that in the Bible?
9. Where are popes mentioned in the Bible.

I just went down a list of those things that affect me in my life. I didn't need a catechism. I was familiar enough with the RCC doctrine to know that these things were wrong and contradicted the Bible.

You make a good point. Reflecting on what you said I about putting myself in my shoes back when I was a catholic. I don't think I had a good consept of missing communion was a mortal sin. I didn't think it mattered. I did think it mattered that I didn't confess my sin before taking communion however. I prayed to Mary thought I never thought of her as God. However, at that time I was secular (and also young). If I died before being able to confess I would end up in purgatory. Baptism and such didn't occur to me as being one way or the other. Also I had very little knowledge of the bible as a catholic. I did however know the creed. And still do now. I can even recite it in latin!

However, a devoute catholic would have a different answers than I. I barely knew my faith. Now the CCC would answer you on these particular issues this way:
1. Mass : "Forsake not the fellowship"
2.Purgatory: like the trinity is made up of several verses but the premeire verse is from the apochrypha 2 Macc 12:45. Though there are allusions to it in Mt 18:32-34; Lk 12:59; Mt 12: 31-32; and 1 Cor 3:11-15.
3. Confession: "Confess your sins one to another"
4. Assurance of Salvation: Primarily Catholics believe you can be apostate. However, they also provide for assurance in the CCC. But not to the extent that you are "presumptious". Thinking you can do what ever you want.
6. Rosary and prayers to Mary. Nowhere does it say pray to Mary in the bible though the CCC states that Gabriel gave Mary respect. And Jesus told John at the cross "Behold your mother" as an example for the church (not my words but the CCC and the quotes from the bible). and followed "mother behold your son" showing a certain relationship there. Though this verse is often used to explain how Mary never had other children as well. Saying why would Jesus give John responsibility and not siblings as should be the case for a Jewish family.
7. Indulgences: I really have no idea. I suspect to work on sanctification
8.Yeah I guess if your sanctified that you have no need for it is reduced
9. Popes. All bishops at one point were referred to as Papa or Father. Pope is just a derivative of Papa.
Having grown up in africa myself a cheiftan or someone in authority is called father out of respect. Its cultural. So I guess it was the case in the Mediterranian basin.
But then many things we do in service isn't mentioned in the bible either. Alter calls for instance. We have our own traditions as well.

 

[DHK]

You make a good point. Reflecting on what you said I about putting myself in my shoes back when I was a catholic. I don't think I had a good consept of missing communion was a mortal sin. I didn't think it mattered. I did think it mattered that I didn't confess my sin before taking communion however. I prayed to Mary thought I never thought of her as God. However, at that time I was secular (and also young). If I died before being able to confess I would end up in purgatory. Baptism and such didn't occur to me as being one way or the other. Also I had very little knowledge of the bible as a catholic. I did however know the creed. And still do now. I can even recite it in latin!

However, a devoute catholic would have a different answers than I. I barely knew my faith. Now the CCC would answer you on these particular issues this way:
1. Mass : "Forsake not the fellowship"

Fellowship is what we as believers have.
Mass correctly put is "the sacrifice of the mass," where every day, all over the world, Christ is sacrificed again and again and again. This goes hand in hand with the "communion" that they celebrate, which the mass is centered around. It is transubstantiation--the sacrifice of the actual blood and body of the Lord Jesus Christ. All of this is heresy.
What does the Bible say:

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

2.Purgatory: like the trinity is made up of several verses but the premeire verse is from the apochrypha 2 Macc 12:45. Though there are allusions to it in Mt 18:32-34; Lk 12:59; Mt 12: 31-32; and 1 Cor 3:11-15.

I had a Bible. There was no apocrypha. I came to believe afterward that the apocryphal books were never part of the canon of Scriptures anyway.
The verses quoted from the NT can in no way support any concept of Purgatory.
Mat.18:32-34--This is a parable. Here is the conclusion and application of the parable as given by Jesus
Matthew 18:35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.
--The emphasis is on forgiveness. He was teaching on forgiveness. In a parable not everything has literal meaning. His emphasis was that man should forgive. One person forgave great; the other forgave not at all. God showed great forgiveness toward us by sending us his son. Ought not we to show forgiveness to one another?

Luke 12:59 I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite.
--He is using the illustration of a justice system. How does that relate to purgatory? It does not.

Mat.12:31,32--What has blasphemy of the Holy Spirit got to do with purgatory? It has nothing to do with it. It is my personal opinion that with a proper exposition of this passage one can see that it is impossible to commit this sin today. There is no mention of purgatory here, not hell, not anything that even relates to the whole concept of it.

1Cor.3:11-15--We all know that this passage refers to the judgment seat of Christ. It has nothing to do with purgatory, but it is an event that takes place in heaven where all believers shall give an account before God. How does it in any way relate to a concept of purgatory?
There is no concept of purgatory in the Bible

3. Confession: "Confess your sins one to another"

It doesn't say to confess your sins to a priest; never; not one Scripture.
Here is what the Scripture does say.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

1 John 2:1-2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
--There is only one person that can come between us and God, and that is Christ himself. He alone is our mediator; not a priest. Only Christ can forgive sins.

4. Assurance of Salvation: Primarily Catholics believe you can be apostate. However, they also provide for assurance in the CCC. But not to the extent that you are "presumptious". Thinking you can do what ever you want.

We don't do whatever we want because we are saved and have a relationship with Christ, the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. However we have this assurance:

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,
--There is no condemnation, none. No matter what I do, I will never be condemned.

Psalms 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
--My sins, all of them, have been completely removed.

6. Rosary and prayers to Mary. Nowhere does it say pray to Mary in the bible though the CCC states that Gabriel gave Mary respect.

Mary was living at that time. She wasn't dead.

And Jesus told John at the cross "Behold your mother" as an example for the church (not my words but the CCC and the quotes from the bible).

Christ was telling John to take care of Mary after his death. To allegorize Scripture like that is wrong. You can make the Bible say anything you want when you allegorize Scripture. Augustine popularized that method of interpretation. Take the statement literally just as Christ meant it to be, and just as John would have taken it. John certainly wouldn't get the meaning of "church" out of that statement.

and followed "mother behold your son" showing a certain relationship there.

Is that what John would have thought? The church had not even come into existence at that time. The explanation doesn't even make sense.

Though this verse is often used to explain how Mary never had other children as well. Saying why would Jesus give John responsibility and not siblings as should be the case for a Jewish family.

The reason John was chosen:
Other disciples had fled from the scene for they were afraid.
The other siblings of Jesus: James, Jude (authors of their respective books in the NT) did not get saved until after the resurrection. Jesus would not allow his mother in such a dangerous time to be put into the care of an unsaved person even if that person was an unsaved son of Mary.

7. Indulgences: I really have no idea. I suspect to work on sanctification

No, one paid for indulgences. They were to pay for the saints in purgatory, that their time might be shortened.

8.Yeah I guess if your sanctified that you have no need for it is reduced

Paying for someone's soul is one of the corruptions of the church that angered Martin Luther so much.

9. Popes. All bishops at one point were referred to as Papa or Father. Pope is just a derivative of Papa.

It is a derivative of nothing in the Bible. The whole concept is foreign to the Bible, which teaches of pastors, not popes, and certainly not a hierarchy of any kind.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Fellowship is what we as believers have.
Mass correctly put is "the sacrifice of the mass," where every day, all over the world, Christ is sacrificed again and again and again. This goes hand in hand with the "communion" that they celebrate, which the mass is centered around. It is transubstantiation--the sacrifice of the actual blood and body of the Lord Jesus Christ. All of this is heresy.
What does the Bible say:

Catholics would say they are celebrating that sacrifice not again. That it is once and for all at that time. As Crucifixion was a pinnacle sacrifice. So it is then they are celebrating it not re sacrificing Jesus.

Mt 18:32-34 Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

In this story the man is already forgiven yet he ended up having to pay. Well if we have assurance then why pay it all back?

Lk 12:59 59I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny

31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come

The obvious question here is the last part of the passage: either in this age or in the age to come begs the question are there sins forgiven in the age to come?

1

Cor 3:11-15 11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

This is obviously a reference to judgment after death. For the believer not the unbeliever.

15And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

Despite what you said. The scriptures do tell us to confess our sins one to another that we might be healed.

I find that your best argument is experientially. If Baptismal Regeneration was valid why was I so secular before accepting Jesus as my personal savior? Was it as my family has stated just dormant? Well then the Holy Spirit is suppose to fill you when you receive your first communion and confirmation. Yet I could have cared less about God for first communion (being young and all). For confirmation it was a couple years after that that I left the RCC. I call it Christianity in Practice. However, saying that I'm not blowing off accurate history because it doesn't align with my beliefs of scripture or theology.

 

[DHK]

Catholics would say they are celebrating that sacrifice not again. That it is once and for all at that time. As Crucifixion was a pinnacle sacrifice. So it is then they are celebrating it not re sacrificing Jesus.

What does their catechism say:

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."


1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

--This is no mere celebration. This is the actual "transubstantiation--the turning of wine and bread into the blood and body of Jesus Christ, or a re-sacrificing of Christ Himself. He was once sacrificed for sins. Despite what they say, they sacrifice him over and over again through their doctrine of transubstantiation. It is in their catechism.

In this story the man is already forgiven yet he ended up having to pay. Well if we have assurance then why pay it all back?

It is a parable. You can't make a parable walk on all fours. A parable is an earthly story meant to teach an earthly truth. The truth is forgiveness. Look at the context:

Matthew 18:21-22 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
--The emphasis is forgiveness. Jesus is teaching on forgiveness. Don't draw doctrine out of the parable that is not there.
Throughout the NT, there is an emphasis on forgiveness. It is one of the characteristics of a Christian. What on earth does this have to do with purgatory? Please explain. It is a parable--an earthly story teaching a heavenly truth about forgiveness. There is no mention of purgatory.

The obvious question here is the last part of the passage: either in this age or in the age to come begs the question are there sins forgiven in the age to come?

If a man dies and goes to hell, his sin will never be forgiven him. Not now, not in any age to come. This is just common sense.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
--In what age will his sins be forgiven him?

Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
--In what age?

1This is obviously a reference to judgment after death. For the believer not the unbeliever.

The scene is in heaven. It takes place after the rapture. All believers will be judged for their works, whether good or bad. Look at Scripture:

1 Corinthians 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
--There is no purgatory here. Our works (not our sin) will be judged. This event is called the Judgment Seat of Christ.

Romans 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
--No purgatory here.

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
--No purgatory here; only our works are judged.

Despite what you said. The scriptures do tell us to confess our sins one to another that we might be healed.

Where does it say to confess your sins to a priest? Where?
I quoted you Scripture that there is only one mediator between man and God, and that is Christ himself. The Bible does not contradict itself. Furthermore, it also says:

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
--We have physical fathers; not spiritual fathers. We are commanded not to call any man "father." God alone is our Father.

Here is the verse in its entirety and not taken out of context:
James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
--The context is prayer.

James 5:16 Confess your offenses to one another, and pray one for another, that you may be healed. The effective, earnest prayer of a righteous man is powerfully effective. (WEB)
--Those things that offend we need to let one another know that we may pray more effectively. The Bible teaches that if we have offended our brother we need to go to him and reconcile ourselves to him. This is the teaching here. There is no confessional. It is a time of prayer. Effectual prayer is when you know what to pray for. Every believer is a priest before God. There is no such thing as a class of priests.

Hebrews 4:14-16 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
--We have a great high priest--Christ Himself.
Each of us are priests, and therefore are able to come right before the throne of God, boldly, just as the high priests of the OT were able to do.

I find that your best argument is experientially. If Baptismal Regeneration was valid why was I so secular before accepting Jesus as my personal savior?

You answered your own question. Baptismal regeneration is secular and not valid. Baptism does nothing for a person except get him wet.

Was it as my family has stated just dormant? Well then the Holy Spirit is suppose to fill you when you receive your first communion and confirmation.

No it does not. It will not change you one iota. That is a superstition of the RCC. The only thing that can change you is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which one receives when he gets saved by trusting in Christ and his atoning work on the cross.

Yet I could have cared less about God for first communion (being young and all). For confirmation it was a couple years after that that I left the RCC. I call it Christianity in Practice.

But it is not Christianity in practice. Sacraments have little to do with Christianity. How will keeping sacraments get anyone to heaven?

However, saying that I'm not blowing off accurate history because it doesn't align with my beliefs of scripture or theology.

I don't find that it is accurate with history only with the RCC history.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What does their catechism say:

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."


1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

Nothing here about re-sacrificing. Just defining Transubstantiation which was already a consept in the 200s AD

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία19101910 Literally, thanksgiving. See Matt. xxvi. 27. [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. 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.19111911 This passage is claimed alike by Calvinists, Lutherans, and Romanists; and, indeed, the language is so inexact, that each party may plausibly maintain that their own opinion is advocated by it. [But the same might be said of the words of our Lord himself; and, if such widely separated Christians can all adopt this passage, who can be sorry?] The expression, “the prayer of His word,” or of the word we have from Him, seems to signify the prayer pronounced over the elements, in imitation of our Lord’s thanksgiving before breaking the bread. [I must dissent from the opinion that the language is “inexact:” he expresses himself naturally as one who believes it is bread, but yet not “common bread.” So Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (a.d. 490), “By the sacraments we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in them,” etc. (See original in Bingham’s Antiquities, book xv. cap. 5. See Chryost., Epist. ad. Cæsarium, tom. iii. p. 753. Ed. Migne.) Those desirous to pursue this inquiry will find the Patristic authorities in Historia Transubstantionis Papalis, etc., Edidit F. Meyrick, Oxford, 1858. The famous tractate of Ratranin (a.d. 840) was published at Oxford, 1838, with the homily of Ælfric (a.d. 960) in a cheap edition.] For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels,

Long before Constantine. Also here long before Justin

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,10161016 Theodoret, in quoting this passage, reads προσφοράς, “offering.” because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death10171017 Literally, “die disputing.” in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,10181018 Literally, “to love.” Some think there is a reference to the agapæ, or love-feasts. that they also might rise again

You assume they're talking about re-sacrificing. Thats not what they themselves call it or believe.

1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'"135 ...The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used,150 since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

See they believe it mystically takes them back to that one sacrifice not re-sacrificing as you suppose.

It is a parable. You can't make a parable walk on all fours. A parable is an earthly story meant to teach an earthly truth. The truth is forgiveness. Look at the context:

funny how people take every part of a parable for meaning such as the Rich man and Lazerus and devine all sorts of principles. Yet if something brings up a question that might not fit their view then its "just a story". I've heard sermons of the Richman as an outline for how gehanna worked etc...

--The emphasis is forgiveness. Jesus is teaching on forgiveness. Don't draw doctrine out of the parable that is not there.

From how I understand it Purgatory is about forgiveness as well. So there is a corrilation.

There is no mention of purgatory

There is no mention of the trinity either.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
--In what age will his sins be forgiven him? Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Both these verses are for the unregenerate. As I understand it Purgatory is for the regenerate

The scene is in heaven. It takes place after the rapture. All believers will be judged for their works, whether good or bad. Look at Scripture:

This verse substantiate their claim in that there is a judgement on our works and those that aren't good are burned away. hmmm As you so aptly quote here

1 Corinthians 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

Romans 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
--No purgatory here.

No trinity either.

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
--We have physical fathers; not spiritual fathers. We are commanded not to call any man "father." God alone is our Father.

I sincerly hope you never called your physical father; father. Hyperboli.(spellihg of but you get the idea)

James 5:16 Confess your offenses to one another, and pray one for another, that you may be healed. The effective, earnest prayer of a righteous man is powerfully effective. (WEB)

I think its pretty clear we're supposed to confess our sins to one another. Can't really interpret it any other way. Doesn't say priest but you still should do it. Do you confess your sins to other people in your fellowship that you can be healed? Wait you can't do that because there is only one mediator! The bible contradicts itself!
So, I'm glad I'm able to give you guys insite with what I've been dealing with for years through my father. However, one thing is clear Scriptures are used and both protestants and Catholics claim it as an authoritative source. Are they Christian? DHK you say no. Or if they are they're decieved or spiritually immature. However, I think they feel the same way about us.

 

[DHK]

So, I'm glad I'm able to give you guys insite with what I've been dealing with for years through my father. However, one thing is clear Scriptures are used and both protestants and Catholics claim it as an authoritative source. Are they Christian? DHK you say no. Or if they are they're decieved or spiritually immature. However, I think they feel the same way about us.

I empathize with you. I know what you have been going through. All of my extended family are Catholic, and are devout Catholics. You are fortunate in that they are at least willing to talk to you about it. My relatives are not willing even to discuss the matter. They won't allow the subject of "religion" to be discussed. They are Catholics, but they don't want to try to defend it. I have even given them the opportunity to bring a Catholic priest and will discuss it with him. Nope. They don't want their religion to be confronted or exposed in any way.

Things like the trinity are a no-brainer. The teaching is in the Scriptures--1 John 5:7 being the clearest statement of the trinity in the Bible. Even without that verse it is not difficult to demonstrate that each person of the Godhead is deity. As far as words are concerned we don't have theology (the study of God) in the Bible either. I hope they do study about God. There are many words we use that are not in the Bible. It wasn't written in English (originally).
But the concept of purgatory is not in the Bible. One simply must take the Scriptures deeper, and show that the context of each of the passages used are not in any way speaking of purgatory. There are only two places mentioned in Scripture that are forever: hell which is ultimately thrown into the lake of fire, which is eternal; and heaven. There is no concept anywhere where believers must suffer through fire. Only unbelievers will suffer in hell or in any hell-like place. Purgatory is just not there. You have the opportunity to show them the Scriptures. I don't. Use that opportunity to the best of your ability. God bless you as you do.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I empathize with you. I know what you have been going through. All of my extended family are Catholic, and are devout Catholics. You are fortunate in that they are at least willing to talk to you about it. My relatives are not willing even to discuss the matter. They won't allow the subject of "religion" to be discussed. They are Catholics, but they don't want to try to defend it. I have even given them the opportunity to bring a Catholic priest and will discuss it with him. Nope. They don't want their religion to be confronted or exposed in any way.

Things like the trinity are a no-brainer. The teaching is in the Scriptures--1 John 5:7 being the clearest statement of the trinity in the Bible. Even without that verse it is not difficult to demonstrate that each person of the Godhead is deity. As far as words are concerned we don't have theology (the study of God) in the Bible either. I hope they do study about God. There are many words we use that are not in the Bible. It wasn't written in English (originally).
But the concept of purgatory is not in the Bible. One simply must take the Scriptures deeper, and show that the context of each of the passages used are not in any way speaking of purgatory. There are only two places mentioned in Scripture that are forever: hell which is ultimately thrown into the lake of fire, which is eternal; and heaven. There is no concept anywhere where believers must suffer through fire. Only unbelievers will suffer in hell or in any hell-like place. Purgatory is just not there. You have the opportunity to show them the Scriptures. I don't. Use that opportunity to the best of your ability. God bless you as you do.

Purgatory can be infered. Just like the trinity is infered. There is always accountability. We're even being judged by our works though they don't save us. As the previously mentioned verses attest to. BTW I think there are many Catholics who are saved and will be in the kingdom.

 

[DHK]

Purgatory can be infered. Just like the trinity is infered. There is always accountability. We're even being judged by our works though they don't save us. As the previously mentioned verses attest to. BTW I think there are many Catholics who are saved and will be in the kingdom.

No, it can't even be inferred; not from a proper exegesis of Scripture.
The trinity is taught; not inferred.
It is taught clearly that God is one; that there is only one God (Isa.43:10,11)
It is taught clearly that Christ is God (John 1:1,14; 10:30ff; Acts 20:28; etc.)
It is taught clearly that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:1-4)

In Matt.3 we see all three of these persons present at the Baptism of Jesus: Christ, physically; the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, and the voice of the Father from Heaven. But there is only one God.

All three are mentioned in the Great Commission ..."baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
--But there is only one God.
The trinity is forcefully taught throughout the Scriptures. It is not inferred. It is taught.

There is not a single reference that teaches purgatory when the reference is taken in context. Not one. One must do a lot of mental gymnastics in order to make a verse teach purgatory. There is no such concept taught.

Here is something to think about. The person that believes in purgatory does not believe that Jesus died for their sins. Why? Because if Jesus died and paid the penalty for our sins, there would be no need for purgatory where one must be further "purged" or further pay the penalty for their sins. It is a denial of the all sufficiency of the blood of Christ; a denial of the full atonement of the blood of Christ. A belief in purgatory is a denial of Christ paying the penalty for our sins.

 

[EdSutton]

In other words you don't have anything to add to the conversation do you Professor Ed the farmer?

I make absolutely no claims to being any Professor.

And I already answered the OP on another thread, about 2 weeks ago.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1404403&postcount=2

And I have answered this before, as well.

What real purpose would multiplied redundancy serve?

Or are they now giving 'extra credit' for additional redundancy???

Ed

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, it can't even be inferred; not from a proper exegesis of Scripture.
The trinity is taught; not inferred.
It is taught clearly that God is one; that there is only one God (Isa.43:10,11)
It is taught clearly that Christ is God (John 1:1,14; 10:30ff; Acts 20:28; etc.)
It is taught clearly that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:1-4)

In Matt.3 we see all three of these persons present at the Baptism of Jesus: Christ, physically; the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, and the voice of the Father from Heaven. But there is only one God.

All three are mentioned in the Great Commission ..."baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
--But there is only one God.
The trinity is forcefully taught throughout the Scriptures. It is not inferred. It is taught.

There is not a single reference that teaches purgatory when the reference is taken in context. Not one. One must do a lot of mental gymnastics in order to make a verse teach purgatory. There is no such concept taught.

Here is something to think about. The person that believes in purgatory does not believe that Jesus died for their sins. Why? Because if Jesus died and paid the penalty for our sins, there would be no need for purgatory where one must be further "purged" or further pay the penalty for their sins. It is a denial of the all sufficiency of the blood of Christ; a denial of the full atonement of the blood of Christ. A belief in purgatory is a denial of Christ paying the penalty for our sins.

On the flip side the person who does not believe in Purgatory regulates Jesus to the status of a whipping boy where by God acts a bit schizophrenic. The attonement places us in a "right" relationship with God and inserts us into the filial relationship making us true heirs. Yet there are still consequences for our actions. The point of Salvation is by many protestant authors to put man back in the position Adam started out with. Living in a right relationship with God. Which means that in that state we should be obedient unlike Adam. So part of the purpose of the Attonement is to help us be obedient. Yet how many of us after regeneration are perfectly obedient? Even in this life we pay the consequences of our sin no matter what our status with God is. For instance you sin and have an affair (God forbid) and the consequence could well be that you contract HIV. But didn't Jesus die once and all for our sins? Yes but you still have to pay the consequences of it in this life. Now you're in a right relationship with God (after repentance) and don't have to worry about the eternal fire. But even after we die God will judge our works even those of us saved. Is that not correct? Those works that are not good are burned away. Hmmm... Must not mean that right? It does mean that it follows that there are the consequences for our bad choices but not to the second death. So God has his only beggotten son tortured and killed for the things you've done and will do. Places you in as heirs and you're not accountable for anything?

 

[DHK]

On the flip side the person who does not believe in Purgatory regulates Jesus to the status of a whipping boy where by God acts a bit schizophrenic. The attonement places us in a "right" relationship with God and inserts us into the filial relationship making us true heirs. Yet there are still consequences for our actions. The point of Salvation is by many protestant authors to put man back in the position Adam started out with. Living in a right relationship with God. Which means that in that state we should be obedient unlike Adam. So part of the purpose of the Attonement is to help us be obedient.

The atonement, in and of itself, brings us into a right relationship with God. Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world (1John 2:2). We accept that sacrifice, and the atonement is made for our sins, the penalty is made and our sins are forgiven. After that the Holy Spirit dwells within and begins to change us. A Christian will do good works because of the work that the Holy Spirit that resides within me. It is not I, but God that works in me to do good.

Yet how many of us after regeneration are perfectly obedient?

No one. And no one can ever be until we reach heaven. We will always have this old nature. Paul said, the things I want to do I don't do; and the things I don't want to do are things I do. He spoke of that continual battle with sin that we all have daily.

Even in this life we pay the consequences of our sin no matter what our status with God is. For instance you sin and have an affair (God forbid) and the consequence could well be that you contract HIV.

Sin always has its consequences, always--whether before salvation or after. If after salvation, one doesn't lose their salvation, only their fellowship with God. 1John 1:9 was written to believers. We come to God on a daily basis that we need to confess our sins to God (not man) and God, who is "faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." That is a promise to believers. Note that our sins, concerning salvation have already been put under the blood and have already been forgiven. Thus this pertains to our daily walk with Christ.

But didn't Jesus die once and all for our sins? Yes but you still have to pay the consequences of it in this life. Now you're in a right relationship with God (after repentance) and don't have to worry about the eternal fire. But even after we die God will judge our works even those of us saved. Is that not correct? Those works that are not good are burned away. Hmmm... Must not mean that right? It does mean that it follows that there are the consequences for our bad choices but not to the second death. So God has his only beggotten son tortured and killed for the things you've done and will do. Places you in as heirs and you're not accountable for anything?

We are always accountable for our sins. There is always forgiveness for sin. A believer can be chastised (Heb.12), or face some other consequence in some other way. God knows. His works will be judged. He will not burn; but his works will go through the fire. Some will burn; others will be refined. Some will be destroyed; others will last for all eternity. Some will be lost; others will be kept. All believers will enter into heaven immediately--they already are in heaven. There is no question about that. There is no purgatory here. If you are doing something for Christ, but with the wrong heart attitude (for example) you can be sure that that "work" will be burned and lost, and that there will be no reward handed out for that work. You will still be there. But there will be no reward, no crown for that work.

Lay your treasures up in heaven, where moth and rust does not corrupt.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The atonement, in and of itself, brings us into a right relationship with God. Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world (1John 2:2). We accept that sacrifice, and the atonement is made for our sins, the penalty is made and our sins are forgiven. After that the Holy Spirit dwells within and begins to change us. A Christian will do good works because of the work that the Holy Spirit that resides within me. It is not I, but God that works in me to do good.

I don't disagree here in fact I've stated it. But with the difference that doing good works is the reason salvation is enacted for us. or at least one of them. Living out your salvation.

No one. And no one can ever be until we reach heaven. We will always have this old nature. Paul said, the things I want to do I don't do; and the things I don't want to do are things I do. He spoke of that continual battle with sin that we all have daily.

Look at it from this perspective. Only pure things can exist in heaven.

Sin always has its consequences, always--whether before salvation or after. If after salvation, one doesn't lose their salvation, only their fellowship with God. 1John 1:9 was written to believers. We come to God on a daily basis that we need to confess our sins to God (not man) and God, who is "faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." That is a promise to believers. Note that our sins, concerning salvation have already been put under the blood and have already been forgiven. Thus this pertains to our daily walk with Christ.

The scriptures still state that we should confess our sins one to another. Can't get around that. And cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Yes Starting with the blood that puts us in a right relationship with God. Then through a life of sanctification. And finally anything love of the world we held on to at the moment we die is then put throught the fire of the presence of God as in a renewal of the covenant (burning bush, pillar of fire, tongues of fire) and burned away like chaff.

We are always accountable for our sinsThere is always forgiveness for sin. A believer can be chastised (Heb.12), or face some other consequence in some other way. God knows. His works will be judged. He will not burn; but his works will go through the fire. Some will burn; others will be refined. Some will be destroyed; others will last for all eternity. Some will be lost; others will be kept.

This is incongruious with this All believers will enter into heaven immediately--they already are in heaven.

There is no question about that. There is no purgatory here. If you are doing something for Christ, but with the wrong heart attitude (for example) you can be sure that that "work" will be burned and lost, and that there will be no reward handed out for that work. You will still be there. But there will be no reward, no crown for that work.

and I agree with this

Lay your treasures up in heaven, where moth and rust does not corrupt

 

[Gup20]

No, it can't even be inferred; not from a proper exegesis of Scripture.
The trinity is taught; not inferred.
It is taught clearly that God is one; that there is only one God (Isa.43:10,11)
It is taught clearly that Christ is God (John 1:1,14; 10:30ff; Acts 20:28; etc.)
It is taught clearly that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:1-4)

In Matt.3 we see all three of these persons present at the Baptism of Jesus: Christ, physically; the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, and the voice of the Father from Heaven. But there is only one God.

All three are mentioned in the Great Commission ..."baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
--But there is only one God.
The trinity is forcefully taught throughout the Scriptures. It is not inferred. It is taught.

I like how well you've laid this out. This is good, and I would agree 100%.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

No, it can't even be inferred; not from a proper exegesis of Scripture.
The trinity is taught; not inferred.
It is taught clearly that God is one; that there is only one God (Isa.43:10,11)
It is taught clearly that Christ is God (John 1:1,14; 10:30ff; Acts 20:28; etc.)
It is taught clearly that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:1-4)

In Matt.3 we see all three of these persons present at the Baptism of Jesus: Christ, physically; the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, and the voice of the Father from Heaven. But there is only one God.

Just to comment, I don't buy into the concept that Purgatory can be found in the Bible either, but in regard to the Trinity, obviously as you pointed out the Trinity is taught in that God is one and Jesus Christ is God and the Holy Spirit. The problem though is that Holy Scripture isn't at all clear on exactly how the 3 persons of the Trinity coexisted. Which is why some bishops in the early Church challenged what had always been believed...

For instance Arius in around 300AD held that the Son [Jesus Christ], while divine and like God, was created by God as the agent through whom he created the universe, and thus that there was a time when the Son was not.

Another instance was Nestorius, he taught that the Virgin Mary gave birth to a man, Jesus Christ, not God the Logos. The Logos only dwelt in Christ, as in a Temple (Christ, therefore, was only Theophoros: the "Bearer of God.") Consequently, the Virgin Mary should be called Christotokos ("Mother of Christ") and not Theotokos ("Birth-giver of God").

So sure the Trinity concept is found in Holy Scripture, but exactly how the 3 coexisted wasn't exactly clear, as noted above. Thus through the Councils, the Church reaffirmed what had always been taught regarding this issue from the beginning.

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

So sure the Trinity concept is found in Holy Scripture, but exactly how the 3 coexisted wasn't exactly clear, as noted above. Thus through the Councils, the Church reaffirmed what had always been taught regarding this issue from the beginning.

In XC
-

There are many things that are not clear. Over and over again I here from the J.W.'s: "The reason we don't accept the trinity is because we can't understand it." Is that a reason not to accept a doctrine? I may not be able to understand how electricity works but I believe it does.
There are many things in the Bible I don't understand. But if the Bible teaches them, then I accept them by faith.