Reformed Churches Join Catholic-Lutheran Accord Regarding Justification

Thanks. I read the first verses you applied to confirmation.

Matthew 3:13-17
[13]Then Jesus went from Galilee to the Jordan River to be baptized by John.
[14]But John tried to talk him out of it. “I am the one who needs to be baptized by you,” he said, “so why are you coming to me?”
[15]But Jesus said, “It should be done, for we must carry out all that God requires.” So John agreed to baptize him.
[16]After his baptism, as Jesus came up out of the water, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and settling on him.
[17]And a voice from heaven said, “This is my dearly loved Son, who brings me great joy.”

I will merely say that there is zero connection between these verses and a prescribed sacrament.

Why is Romanism so bad at exegeting the scriptures?

What I see, time and time again, is Romanists forcing the Bible onto their pretext, out of context, in order to manufacture a prooftext.

Honestly, what would ever make you imagine that such poor exegesis would ever be viewed as a legitimate meaning, which God intended to say?

Did you even read the verses you posted or did you just copy and paste out of the big book of Romanism?

 

Only in your estimation - others think differently.

 

Yep, that is certainly orthodox Christianity at it's core and quite different than what other men have come up with centuries down the line. It's ironic that those who claim the Scriptures so rigorously reject what is really there.

 

Of course others think differently. Those others are Romanists who let their church create biblical proof texts out of context to fit their pretext.

You cannot show a connection for the first verses I quoted and the sacrament it supposedly supports. You'll need to pound a wet noodle into a canyon in order to make it work.

 

You didn't even read the passages. Are you a lemming?

 

"I will merely say that there is zero connection between these verses and a prescribed sacrament."

That verse is showing you the sacrament taking place.

John 6
27“Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.”


The problem you have is the word "sacrament". You can call a duck a cow........its still gonna quack.

You reject the spirit of God descended on Jesus = You reject Confirmation.


We don't have to call it confirmation. Gift of the Holy Spirit you can call it what ever you want, hot shot.

 

I don't reject the text. I just don't see any connection between the text and confirmation classes. They are two entirely separate things. No one who exegetes the passage will readily create an application of confirmation from the passage. You have to force your prescription on the passage, which is exactly what you and the other Romanists do time after time. It's so very odd to see and read such shoddy comprehension and interpretation of God's word. Even worse is the poor argument of..."way back when some dude in a gunny sack created this so it must be an accurate interpretation. Never do you question the exegetical skills of gunny sack man.
I dare you to question what you have been taught by Rome.

 

Not a lemming, but just one who looks to the Church for the proper explanation of things, besides they make perfect sense to me. But really, this is just not only the "Romanist" perspective of things, but our Eastern Orthodox brothers and many mainline Protestant denominations follow the same teachings of the sacraments, while others such as yourself offer only a wholesale rejection of them (which of course is your right). Just don't try to tell the rest of us that we are wrong and you are the one with the right answers. All you have is one opinion among the many that are out there.

 

You tell him brother! I don't understand why others have such a problem with the words we use. (Oh that's right, it does not fit into the biblical compartment they have created and this is just another teaching of the despised Romanists I guess)

 

Amen to that!

 

The sacrament of confession-absolution precedes the taking of the eucharist.
Committing a mortal sin causes one to fall from sanctifying grace in the RCC and its illegitimate children churches.

One must go to the priest confess sin(s) receive absolution (forgiveness) then do works (usually say prayers) and then one is restored to sanctifying grace (re-saved) thereby worthy to receive the eucharist according to Rome,

Bondage.

HankD (Former cradle Catholic)

 

Your church has it wrong because it often misapplies scripture out of context and as a proof text to force its false doctrine into the Bible. In other words they approach scripture as their tool to manipulate people rather than approaching scripture and letting scripture teach what it actually says.
Your incapacity to question the hermeneutical failure of your church makes you a lemming willing to perish over the abyss and plunge toward hell with no concept of why you missed the path provided in scripture by God.

 

Yours is a manufactured system of hermeneutical faux pas with little biblical merit. Understand that your churches teachings are often illegitimate.

 

That was not inspired by God though on the whole, so we would still see the Old testament as the one accepted by the Jews as the text to use, as it was in hebrew and Aramaic!

 

No, for they misunderstood the security of those now in Christ, but Rome misses what the Gospel itself actually is!

 

There are spiritual benefits to be had in its partaking, as those who are reformed would see, as Calvin saw, but that is still not Grace imparted towards us in the sense of Infused as Rome teaches!

 

To what extent do these impart the grace they are said to represent?

All churches baptize converts, so the Baptist practice is generally accepted, but how can baby baptism convey grace? My Anglican mother insisted that "we made you a Christian by baptism." I was confirmed at 12, and came to a living, saving faith in Christ at 18, and was baptized as a believer a few months later.

Most of us enjoy matrimony, but for most it has no religious significance, and sadly for the RC priesthood, monks and nuns, the joys of matrimony are denied them by making the significance so significant that the real experience is denied them by the church.

Making the Eucharist a sacrifice rather than a sacrament denies the finished saving sacrifice of Christ.

Now tell us, how does one who has participated in the sacraments become saved?

And how does the agreed statement on justification apply to the many nominal RCs ?

 

Rome would have us needing to actually become good enough in and of ourselves to actual merit God saving us!

 

Richard Barcellos is a very orthodox Reformed Baptist who adheres to the 1689 Baptist Confession of faith, and when he talks about 'means of grace' and 'sacraments' he means something very different to that which Roman Catholics mean.

Having said that, I wish with all my heart that Baptists would find other words to use instead of those terms, to avoid confusion as on this thread. Here is the 1689 Confession on the Lord's Supper, and you will note that it uses neither of those words:

Chapter 30: Of the Lord's Supper
1._____ The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed, to be observed in his churches, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth the sacrifice of himself in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other.
( 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; 1 Corinthians 10:16, 17,21 )
2._____ In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only a memorial of that one offering up of himself by himself upon the cross, once for all; and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same. So that the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, injurious to Christ's own sacrifice the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.
( Hebrews 9:25, 26, 28; 1 Corinthians 11:24; Matthew 26:26, 27 )
3._____ The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use, and to take and break the bread; to take the cup, and, they communicating also themselves, to give both to the communicants.
( 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, etc. )
4._____ The denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance, and to the institution of Christ.
( Matthew 26:26-28; Matthew 15:9; Exodus 20:4, 5 )
5._____ The outward elements in this ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.
( 1 Corinthians 11:27; 1 Corinthians 11:26-28 )
6._____ That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood, commonly called transubstantiation, by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason, overthroweth the nature of the ordinance, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.
( Acts 3:21; Luke 14:6, 39; 1 Corinthians 11:24, 25 )
7._____ Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
( 1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 )
8._____ All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto; yea, whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.
( 2 Corinthians 6:14, 15; 1 Corinthians 11:29; Matthew 7:6 )

Article 7 is controversial, but the early Particular Baptists followed Calvin's view of the Supper rather than Zwingli's. Barcellos' book explains that.