Questions and answers with Jeremiah2911 and others

[Thinkingstuff]

In the last thread I try to answer cogently questions you have towards the Catholic church. Unfortinately, Biblicist hijacked the thread and is currently pontificating his opinions. I suspect he will do that with this thread but I suggest we and anyone else who wants an honest discussion about these topics just ignore him. I don't mind agreeing to disagree what I do mind is subversion of topic into another or simply having the conversation hijacked so someone out of context can pontificating their ideas regardless of the current topic. I will ask DHK to close the other thread.

 

[The Biblicist]

In the last thread I try to answer cogently questions you have towards the Catholic church. Unfortinately, Biblicist hijacked the thread and is currently pontificating his opinions. I suspect he will do that with this thread but I suggest we and anyone else who wants an honest discussion about these topics just ignore him. I don't mind agreeing to disagree what I do mind is subversion of topic into another or simply having the conversation hijacked so someone out of context can pontificating their ideas regardless of the current topic. I will ask DHK to close the other thread.

Alright! What then is the topic of this thread? Is it wrong for anyone to respond to statements posted on this thread by you or others? Are there some statements you or others post that should not be subjects of a post? All my posts were in response to specific statements that were taken from your posts.

What are the rules for responding to things said by you and others on this thread??????

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Alright! What then is the topic of this thread? Is it wrong for anyone to respond to statements posted on this thread by you or others? Are there some statements you or others post that should not be subjects of a post? All my posts were in response to specific statements that were taken from your posts.

What are the rules for responding to things said by you and others on this thread??????

Do you have a specific question you want answered? (I'm breaking my own rule!!!!!) But only to give you the benefit of the doubt that you will try to converse with out redirection or pointificating some point is not in the context of the discussion. Ask your question.

 

[The Biblicist]

Do you have a specific question you want answered? (I'm breaking my own rule!!!!!) But only to give you the benefit of the doubt that you will try to converse with out redirection or pointificating some point is not in the context of the discussion. Ask your question.

Are you saying that all other posters are limited to merely asking questions??? Are we to submit to you as the teacher and if we, God forbid, make assertions in response to your statements rather than ask questions we get scolded or kicked off?

I mean really, you talk about control, I think this takes the cake!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Are you saying that all other posters are limited to merely asking questions??? Are we to submit to you as the teacher and if we, God forbid, make assertions in response to your statements rather than ask questions we get scolded or kicked off?

I mean really, you talk about control, I think this takes the cake!

No you can bring up points too. Just if we are talking about Baptism why bring up eschatology? Let the point be about your view of baptism or scriptures that you think support it. And let the conversation naturally flow. If you want to bring up eschatology then say that you are going off topic. But at least there is cohesion. And btw the thread was started to answer questions a specific poster had but the other thread was closed. So if I am to answer questions I though there could be a venue for it.

 

[The Biblicist]

No you can bring up points too. Just if we are talking about Baptism why bring up eschatology? Let the point be about your view of baptism or scriptures that you think support it. And let the conversation naturally flow. If you want to bring up eschatology then say that you are going off topic. But at least there is cohesion. And btw the thread was started to answer questions a specific poster had but the other thread was closed. So if I am to answer questions I though there could be a venue for it.

My PM will explain what is the problem of perception from my view point in regard to your thinking about jumping from topic to topic.

However, it is true that the title of your thread refers to question and answers with Jeremiah. However, I did not realize it was a private discussion that excluded others. If that is the case, then I will bow out and leave it to you two discuss your differences.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

My PM will explain what is the problem of perception from my view point in regard to your thinking about jumping from topic to topic.

However, it is true that the title of your thread refers to question and answers with Jeremiah. However, I did not realize it was a private discussion that excluded others. If that is the case, then I will bow out and leave it to you two discuss your differences.

It wasn't private. but you certainly should have stayed on topic. What do you want to discuss?

 

[The Biblicist]

It wasn't private. but you certainly should have stayed on topic. What do you want to discuss?

I did stay on the topic for each quotation I took from your posts. The problem is perception. You merged into one thing (justification) a variety of things that the Bible distinguishes (new birth, sanctification, etc.). In order to respond to your statements I had to distguish between things you merged into one. Hence, you charge me with jumping from justification to new birth to sanctification to glorificaiton, etc. You are simply looking at your post from how you perceived it not how I perceived it.

However, Let's begin with a representative sampling from the CCC concerning sacraments and specifically as a "sign" that God uses to instrumentally convey what is signified and see if we can agree on four statements:

1236 The proclamation of the Word of God enlightens the candidates and the assembly with the revealed truth and elicits the response of faith, WHICH IS INSEPARABLE FROM BAPTISM. Indeed Baptism is 'THE SACRAMENT OF FAITH' in a particular way, since it is the sarcramental ENTRY into the life of faith. - CCC

1234 The meaning and grace of the sacrament of Baptism are clear seen in the rites of its celebration. By following the gestures and words of this celebration with attentive participation, the faithful are initiated into the riches this sacrament signifies and actually brings about IN each newly baptized person. - CCC

774 .....The seven sacraments are the signs and instruments by which the Holy Spirit speads grace of Christ.....

775 "The Church, in Christ, is like a sacrament, a sign and instument

1084 ...The sacraments are perceptable signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficasiously the grace that they signify

1992 ....Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith."

1997 .....by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ.....




Regardless of how you or Rome may justify the above statements, is it correct that these representative statements clearly and explicitly teach that a scrament is:

1. A visible sign (symbol)? - CCC 1084

2. The instrument by which God conveys what is signified? - CCC 1084, 1997, 1992, etc.

3. That the grace of justification and new birth are received "in" and "by" the sacrament of baptism? - CCC 1992

4. That justifying faith is inseparable from baptism which is the "sacrament of faith" and "entry into the life of faith"? - CCC 1236

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I did stay on the topic for each quotation I took from your posts. The problem is perception. You merged into one thing (justification) a variety of things that the Bible distinguishes (new birth, sanctification, etc.). In order to respond to your statements I had to distguish between things you merged into one. Hence, you charge me with jumping from justification to new birth to sanctification to glorificaiton, etc. You are simply looking at your post from how you perceived it not how I perceived it.

Not true. You mixed up that bag. Not I. I had a specific answer and your pre-concieved notion about something that had not been stated.

However, Let's begin with a representative sampling from the CCC concerning sacraments and specifically as a "sign" that God uses to instrumentally convey what is signified and see if we can agree on four statements:

Again you begin with a false notion and frame the argument. Before any other quote from the Catachism you must first understand how the Catholic church views the terms sign and symbol. Else you're just starting from a wrong premise and building a case with no substance. That is the danger of framing the argument to only include your inherent answers. If the premise is wrong to begin with the whole thing falls apart. Again I don't like being lead by the nose. So, please don't attempt it. Just ask your question because until I can express how I understand something I won't accept yours. Finally, since your whole build up started with a faulty foundational premise your question regarding it is in appopriate. So, before jumping to conclusion what does the Catholic Church thing about signs and symbols? Its pretty exhaustive but in regard to any thing regarding them even the sacraments we must start off by what we mean.

1146 Signs of the human world. In human life, signs and symbols occupy an important place. As a being at once body and spirit, man expresses and perceives spiritual realities through physical signs and symbols. As a social being, man needs signs and symbols to communicate with others, through language, gestures, and actions. The same holds true for his relationship with God.
1147 God speaks to man through the visible creation. The material cosmos is so presented to man's intelligence that he can read there traces of its Creator.16 Light and darkness, wind and fire, water and earth, the tree and its fruit speak of God and symbolize both his greatness and his nearness.

1148 Inasmuch as they are creatures, these perceptible realities can become means of expressing the action of God who sanctifies men, and the action of men who offer worship to God. The same is true of signs and symbols taken from the social life of man: washing and anointing, breaking bread and sharing the cup can express the sanctifying presence of God and man's gratitude toward his Creator. 1149 The great religions of mankind witness, often impressively, to this cosmic and symbolic meaning of religious rites. The liturgy of the Church presupposes, integrates and sanctifies elements from creation and human culture, conferring on them the dignity of signs of grace, of the new creation in Jesus Christ.

1150 Signs of the covenant. The Chosen People received from God distinctive signs and symbols that marked its liturgical life. These are no longer solely celebrations of cosmic cycles and social gestures, but signs of the covenant, symbols of God's mighty deeds for his people. Among these liturgical signs from the Old Covenant are circumcision, anointing and consecration of kings and priests, laying on of hands, sacrifices, and above all the Passover. The Church sees in these signs a prefiguring of the sacraments of the New Covenant.
1151 Signs taken up by Christ. In his preaching the Lord Jesus often makes use of the signs of creation to make known the mysteries of the Kingdom of God.17 He performs healings and illustrates his preaching with physical signs or symbolic gestures.18 He gives new meaning to the deeds and signs of the Old Covenant, above all to the Exodus and the Passover,19 for he himself is the meaning of all these signs.

1152 Sacramental signs. Since Pentecost, it is through the sacramental signs of his Church that the Holy Spirit carries on the work of sanctification. The sacraments of the Church do not abolish but purify and integrate all the richness of the signs and symbols of the cosmos and of social life. Further, they fulfill the types and figures of the Old Covenant, signify and make actively present the salvation wrought by Christ, and prefigure and anticipate the glory of heaven.

Thus we can move on to the consept

1145 A sacramental celebration is woven from signs and symbols. In keeping with the divine pedagogy of salvation, their meaning is rooted in the work of creation and in human culture, specified by the events of the Old Covenant and fully revealed in the person and work of Christ.

Much different then you supposed. See your premise begins wrong. With this in mind Luther comes close to the Catholic perspective about the sacrament in light of this from his "The Large Catechism, VIII, 4"

But as our would-be wise, new spirits assert that faith alone saves, and that works and external things avail nothing, we answer: it is true, indeed, that nothing in us is of any avail but faith, as we shall hear still further. But these blind guides are unwilling to see this, namely, tht faith must have something which it believes, that is, of which it takes hold, and upon which it stands and rests. Thus faith clings to the water, and believes that it is Baptism, in which there is pure salvation and life; not through the water (as we have sufficiently stated), but through the fact that it is embodied in the Word and institution of God, and the name of God inheres in it.

and to conclude

For Catholics and Martin Luther, baptism is all about what Christ does for us and not what we do for Christ - Devin Rose.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not true. You mixed up that bag. Not I. I had a specific answer and your pre-concieved notion about something that had not been stated.

False, but let's go on!

Again you begin with a false notion and frame the argument.

I presented NO ARGUMENTS and asked you to present NO JUSTIFICATIONS. I simply quoted representative statements that repeatedly state the same thing over and over. I could have quote many many more that state the very exact same thing.

I simply asked you to confirm or deny that the four conclusions matched what was explicitly stated in the representative CCC quotations.

This is not a matter of context or meaning, but a matter of proper terminology or expression of words.

For example, when the CCC says there are "seven" sacraments and I make the assertion that the CCC says there is "seven sacraments" all one needs to do is confirm or deny that my conclusion represents what is said?

So when The CCC says a sacrament is a "sign" and I respond that the CCC says a sacrament is a sign, no definition/explanation/argument needs to be made to confirm or deny that my assertion is correct concerning what the CCC explicitly states.

This simple introduction does require a genuis to answer what is clearly a matter of observation not interpretation!!!!!! You are wanting to lay down a foundation of defense even before we can agree what are the words that will need defining or defending!!!!!!!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I presented NO ARGUMENTS

Oh here we go again. Let me quote you.

However, Let's begin with a representative sampling from the CCC concerning sacraments and specifically as a "sign" that God uses to instrumentally convey what is signified and see if we can agree on four statements:

First of all you want me to agree with you that a sign is how you defined it above and more simply and simply as

A visible sign (symbol)?

Which I cannot agree with you and showed you the Catholic Perspective of how the term sign is viewed. Quite a long quotation which I hope you read. Even the term symbol is misapplied and thus when you read those statements without the proper view of sign and symbol you misapply what they mean. So I tried to clarify it for you. But of course you are not interested because you go on to say

Regardless of how you or Rome may justify the above statements, is it correct that these representative statements clearly and explicitly teach that a scrament is:

to which I would have to say no because of how you defined sign and then how those verses would apply to the aspect. I even quoted Luther to give you a sense on how this sign under the sacraments apply but then you go on to say

This is not a matter of context or meaning

it absolutely is. The foundation which you base the quotes one is off its like some believes that Jesus is a reincarnation of Buddah and tries to apply scripture in that context. You come accross the same issue. So, unless you want me to ignore you read how sign is viewed and we can talk about how it applies to the sacraments as I started to show you with Luther's quote.

 

[The Biblicist]

1236 The proclamation of the Word of God enlightens the candidates and the assembly with the revealed truth and elicits the response of faith, WHICH IS INSEPARABLE FROM BAPTISM. Indeed Baptism is 'THE SACRAMENT OF FAITH' in a particular way, since it is the sarcramental ENTRY into the life of faith. - CCC

1234 The meaning and grace of the sacrament of Baptism are clear seen in the rites of its celebration. By following the gestures and words of this celebration with attentive participation, the faithful are initiated into the riches this sacrament signifies and actually brings about IN each newly baptized person. - CCC

774 .....The seven sacraments are the signs and instruments by which the Holy Spirit speads grace of Christ.....

775 "The Church, in Christ, is like a sacrament, a sign and instument

1084 ...The sacraments are perceptable signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficasiously the grace that they signify

1992 ....Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith."

1997 .....by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ.....




Regardless of how you or Rome may justify the above statements, can you confirm or deny the following expressions are in keeping with what the above quotations explicitly say about sacraments as a sign:

1. A perceptable sign? - CCC 1084

2. The instrument by which God conveys what is signified? - CCC 1084, 1997, 1992, etc.

3. That the grace of justification and new birth are received "by" and "in" the sacrament of baptism? - CCC 1992

4. That justifying faith is inseparable from baptism which is the "sacrament of faith" and "entry into the life of faith"? - CCC 1236

If you disagree, please quote the appropriate CCC statement referenced and point out where in that quotation I have misrepresented the wording.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not true. You mixed up that bag. Not I. I had a specific answer and your pre-concieved notion about something that had not been stated.

Again you begin with a false notion and frame the argument. Before any other quote from the Catachism you must first understand how the Catholic church views the terms sign and symbol. Else you're just starting from a wrong premise and building a case with no substance. That is the danger of framing the argument to only include your inherent answers. If the premise is wrong to begin with the whole thing falls apart. Again I don't like being lead by the nose. So, please don't attempt it. Just ask your question because until I can express how I understand something I won't accept yours. Finally, since your whole build up started with a faulty foundational premise your question regarding it is in appopriate. So, before jumping to conclusion what does the Catholic Church thing about signs and symbols? Its pretty exhaustive but in regard to any thing regarding them even the sacraments we must start off by what we mean.

Thus we can move on to the consept
Much different then you supposed. See your premise begins wrong. With this in mind Luther comes close to the Catholic perspective about the sacrament in light of this from his "The Large Catechism, VIII, 4"
and to conclude

I am simply trying to establish that Rome uses the term "sign" in connection to what they perceive as divine ordinances (sacraments). I am not trying to establish what they mean by it.

What difference does it really make how Rome attempts to fill in its own meaning of the term "sign" unless it agrees with the Biblical use of the term "sign" in connection with divine ordinances???? It is not Rome's use and meaning that is important but the Biblical's use and meaning. Rome's meaning does not dictate the meaning and usage by the Bible but rather the Bible dictates whether Rome's meaning in connection with ordinances is Biblical or unBiblical.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am simply trying to establish that Rome uses the term "sign" in connection to what they perceive as divine ordinances (sacraments). I am not trying to establish what they mean by it.

What difference does it really make how Rome attempts to fill in its own meaning of the term "sign" unless it agrees with the Biblical use of the term "sign" in connection with divine ordinances???? It is not Rome's use and meaning that is important but the Biblical's use and meaning. Rome's meaning does not dictate the meaning and usage by the Bible but rather the Bible dictates whether Rome's meaning in connection with ordinances is Biblical or unBiblical.

In order to understand what someone means you must understand how they think about certain words. The next thing is people assign words to mean all sorts of things dependent on the context of the use of words. This must be understood as well. Finally, the bible is not a dictionary. You heartedly believe in the Trinity but that term is not used in scriptures. You don't automatically place this word as disreputable. But understand the intent and meaning. Which is key in any understainding.

 

[The Biblicist]

In order to understand what someone means you must understand how they think about certain words. The next thing is people assign words to mean all sorts of things dependent on the context of the use of words. This must be understood as well. Finally, the bible is not a dictionary. You heartedly believe in the Trinity but that term is not used in scriptures. You don't automatically place this word as disreputable. But understand the intent and meaning. Which is key in any understainding.

The fact is that Rome uses the term "sign" in connection with the sacraments does it not? What it may mean by it is another issue but first let's be clear that it has chosen to use that term to describe the sacraments.

Second, the Bible uses the term "sign" in relationship with divine ordinances does it not? What it may mean by it is another issue but first let's be clear that Biblical writers have chosen to use the term "sign" to describe divine ordinances.

After we have established that, then let's define what Rome means by "sign" in connection with what it calls "sacraments" versus what the Biblical writers mean by "sign" in connection with divine ordinances.

I refuse to follow any logic that allows Rome or Baptists to redefine a Biblical term by their own SYSTEM of definitions. We may look at how Rome or Baptists define such a term according to their SYSTEM of doctrine but it is the Biblical use that approves or condemns of what Rome or Baptists define it not vice versa!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The fact is that Rome uses the term "sign" in connection with the sacraments does it not? What it may mean by it is another issue but first let's be clear that it has chosen to use that term to describe the sacraments.

First of all why to you call it Rome when its at the Vatican. Why don't you assign Vatican uses the term sign. But like substance there is a specific meaning that isn't connotated with the modern meaning of that word. To imply such will lead to natural misunderstanding.

Second, the Bible uses the term "sign" in relationship with divine ordinances does it not? What it may mean by it is another issue but first let's be clear that Biblical writers have chosen to use the term "sign" to describe divine ordinances.

indeed they do however term "ordenance" is no more a scriptural word than Sacrament. For instance I noted when ordenance is translated into english (from Mishpat) it actually means judgement. This is not the meaning Protestants assign to ordinances. thus anything said by you about ordinances will be misleading if I hold Mishpat means judgement. However, to qualify what it is talking about the catholic church defines signs for your benefit and I quoted them for you.

we have established that, then let's define what Rome means by "sign" in connection with what it calls "sacraments" versus what the Biblical writers mean by "sign" in connection with divine ordinances.

As I've shown you would first have to demonstrate first the connection and then the meaning the original authors had in mind.

I refuse to follow any logic that allows Rome or Baptists to redefine a Biblical term by their own SYSTEM of definitions. We may look at how Rome or Baptists define such a term according to their SYSTEM of doctrine but it is the Biblical use that approves or condemns of what Rome or Baptists define it not vice versa!

That is fine. However, you are missing out on a simple point. The Catholic Church uses techincal terms to properly define what it is saying. These have been done over a millennia and thus the original meaning of the term must be revisited for proper understanding. Sometimes modern english does no justice to the translated word.

 

[The Biblicist]

First of all why to you call it Rome when its at the Vatican. Why don't you assign Vatican uses the term sign. But like substance there is a specific meaning that isn't connotated with the modern meaning of that word. To imply such will lead to natural misunderstanding.

The ROMAN Catholic Church is often referred to as "Rome" since Rome is where its headquaters are located. However, if that offends you and you want me to refer to the ROMAN Catholic Church as the "Vatican" I will do so.

indeed they do however term "ordenance" is no more a scriptural word than Sacrament. For instance I noted when ordenance is translated into english (from Mishpat) it actually means judgement. This is not the meaning Protestants assign to ordinances. thus anything said by you about ordinances will be misleading if I hold Mishpat means judgement. However, to qualify what it is talking about the catholic church defines signs for your benefit and I quoted them for you.

Look, I don't want to divert us on a rabbit trail. I used the term "ordinance" because my version of the Scriptures use it and because I do not believe in "sacraments" as the proper term to define either baptism or the Lord's Supper. However, I will not go down that rabbit trail at this point, perhaps later when we get into definitions. Now I am only concerned about terms and I used a Biblical term "ordinance" and "sign" and I used a Vatican term "sign" in connection with the Vatican term "sacraments." Case closed.

As I've shown you would first have to demonstrate first the connection and then the meaning the original authors had in mind.

I feel your missing the entire point. You must establish first what terms are being used BEFORE you can establish what they mean by those terms. I am simply establishing the terms being used by the Vatican and we seemingly cannot even agree they use the term "sign" in connection with the term "sacrament".

That is fine. However, you are missing out on a simple point. The Catholic Church uses techincal terms to properly define what it is saying. These have been done over a millennia and thus the original meaning of the term must be revisited for proper understanding. Sometimes modern english does no justice to the translated word.

The point I believe you are missing is that first we are establishing that the Vatican is using the SAME term "sign" in connection with justification and external actions as the Bible uses in connection with justification (Rom. 4:11) with external actions. Once that is admitted, then, it must be shown that the Vatican's definition of "sign" in that connection is different or the same as the Bible's definition of "sign" in that connection.

A. Point one - establish the Vatican and Bible are using the same term "sign" in connection with justification and external acts.

B. Point two - establish the Vatican's use and meaning in that connection is the same or different than the Biblical use and meaning in that same connection.

I am simply trying to logically follow A to B not B to A.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The ROMAN Catholic Church is often referred to as "Rome" since Rome is where its headquaters are located. However, if that offends you and you want me to refer to the ROMAN Catholic Church as the "Vatican" I will do so.

No need. Though, because of my many years as a protestant (though I would never have claimed that title for myself) its always used as a slur bringing up Conotations of the Whore of Babylon etc... But a lot has happened in history and Rome certainly has gone through changes itself. Roman Catholic really means Western Catholic of which itself is made up of 23 rites which only one is called Roman. That's why I pointed it out to begin with. Most rites use regional languages and primarily it is Greek, though Arminian, and Coptic are also used. The one Roman rite of all 23 rites uses Latin as a base.

Look, I don't want to divert us on a rabbit trail. I used the term "ordinance" because my version of the Scriptures use it and because I do not believe in "sacraments" as the proper term to define either baptism or the Lord's Supper. However, I will not go down that rabbit trail at this point, perhaps later when we get into definitions. Now I am only concerned about terms and I used a Biblical term "ordinance" and "sign" and I used a Vatican term "sign" in connection with the Vatican term "sacraments." Case closed.

Ok. Define what you mean by Ordinance. I will attempt to clarify for you what we mean by Sacrament. 1)

A sacramental celebration is a meeting of God's children with their Father, in Christ and the Holy Spirit; this meeting takes the form of a dialogue, through actions and words. Admittedly, the symbolic actions are already a language, but the Word of God and the response of faith have to accompany and give life to them

2)

it is through the sacramental signs of his Church that the Holy Spirit carries on the work of sanctification. The sacraments of the Church do not abolish but purify and integrate all the richness of the signs and symbols of the cosmos and of social life. Further, they fulfill the types and figures of the Old Covenant, signify and make actively present the salvation wrought by Christ, and prefigure and anticipate the glory of heaven.

Where as signs are understood as 3)

God speaks to man through the visible creation...The same is true of signs and symbols taken from the social life of man: washing and anointing, breaking bread and sharing the cup can express the sanctifying presence of God and man's gratitude toward his Creator.

therefore with the foundation laid the sacraments are where God communes with man singularily and in community in scriptures we see that 4)

Christ instituted the sacraments of the new law. There are seven: Baptism (Mark 16-16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.)
, Confirmation (or Chrismation)(Acts 8. 14-15 and 17: Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word
of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15. Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they
might receive the Holy Ghost: 17. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.), the Eucharist (Mark 14, 22-24: And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said,
Take, eat: This is my body. 23. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks. he gave it to them: and they
all drank of it. 24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.), Penance (Numbers 5, 6-7: Speak unto the children of Israel. When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit . .
. Then they shall confess their sin which they have done,...Matt. 3, 5-6: Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan. And were
baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins....james 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray...), the Anointing of the Sick(James 5, 14-16: Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders (i. e., priests) of the church; and let them pray
over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord
shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
), Holy Orders(I Cor. 4, l: Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God...John 15, 16: Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth
fruit; and that your fruit should remain- that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it to you) and Matrimony(Gen.2:24, after creating Eve, says "this is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his
wife, and they become one flesh".) The seven sacraments touch all the stages and all the important moments of Christian life

by which God communicates his grace to us.

 

[The Biblicist]

Ok. Define what you mean by Ordinance.

This is too broad! Let us stick to the area where our contention really lies. That definitive area is the use and meaning of the term "sign" in its connection with justification.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is too broad! Let us stick to the area where our contention really lies. That definitive area is the use and meaning of the term "sign" in its connection with justification.

I've attempted to explain it to you. I don't think we have minds that can meet for this discussion then.