1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured OSAS Trap

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Cathode, Oct 22, 2024.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You did not study well.

    What was the Early Church belief in terms of Christ's death? What is the Roman Catholic belief?

    The Roman Catholic position is that the Early Church was wrong.

    What did the ECF's write if the elements of the Supper? What do Catholics believe?

    The ECF's wrote that while the elements do not change the words for the elements change (symbolic). Catholics believe the elements transform into blood and flesh.

    The ECF's did not sprinkle water as normal baptism. Roman Catholics do.

    Early Church Christians did not confess to a priest. Catholics do.
     
  2. Oseas3

    Oseas3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2019
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    26
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    It was around year 55AD, the Church of Rome, now the current demonic Roman Catholic Chuch, was already working ruled by the Devil, not by the Lord JESUS, and Satan already was working to elect a representative for himself in the Church of Rome, one born of him and for him, and the path was already open with the spread of idolatry and apostasy in the Roman Church.

    But the Devil still needed to elect and exalt a religious leader to maintain his satanic religious work in the world, and at that time he chose to create a false Christianity and a powerful and satanic religious, political, and economic structure, and so on. It was still the year 95 AD and Satan had managed to create and develop his body, his satanic church called Catholic Church, later the Roman Catholic Church, and so it was decided to elect a Pope who would represent the Devil in person, and so it was done.

    By the way, also among the Jews of esoteric and kabbalistic and spiritualist Judaism, Satan among them will not elect a representative man to guide them, no, in this case even he himself, incarnate, yes, he himself incarnate will manifest himself as messiah-John 5:43-47 combined with 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 and Apocalypse 13:11-18.

    And the Devil in person will be the guide of the esoteric Jews of the kabbalah, and of all religions among the gentiles, mainly the Catholicism-Revelation 13:2- , and even the attendees of traditional denominational churches that are already dead, and sects, and false evangelical movements called gospel, will be deceived by the messiah Devil, the MAN of sin.

    Revelation 13:4 - And they worshipped the Devil which gave power unto the Beast(Beast of sea-Revelation 13:2): and they (also) worshipped the Beast, saying, Who is like unto the Beast? who is able to make war with him? -> Michael is able to make war against the Beast of sea-Revelation 12:7-12.
     
  3. Cathode

    Cathode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2021
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    222
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Ok you quote the Fathers Baptist beliefs and I’ll quote the Fathers Catholic beliefs.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Oseas3

    Oseas3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2019
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    26
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    My Lord JESUS makes it very clear, saying: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. Matthew 22:21

    Fathers Catholic beliefs, are of the demonic Caesar, so the fathers catholic beliefs, beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church, are all of the Devil, not of GOD. Beatifying demonic defuncts to be worshipped by the followers of the Catholic Church, it is a terrible and SATANIC belief. Get behind us Satan..
     
  5. Cathode

    Cathode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2021
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    222
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    You really need your spleen checked.
     
  6. Oseas3

    Oseas3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2019
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    26
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Your tongue is a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among your members that setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. James 3:6
     
  7. Walter

    Walter Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    2,535
    Likes Received:
    144
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian

    Pure nonsense!!!

    'The Early Church believed NOTHING like what you are claiming. BTW, Catholics do not 'sprinkle babies'.

    Here is what the ECF's believed about communion:
    “Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally” (ibid., 211–12).

    Here are examples of what early Christian writers had to say on the subject of the the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist:

    Ignatius of Antioch
    “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

    “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

    Justin Martyr
    “For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

    Irenaeus
    “If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

    “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

    Tertullian
    “[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

    Hippolytus
    “‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

    Origen
    “Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

    Cyprian of Carthage
    “He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).


    Cyril of Jerusalem
    “The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

    “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

    Ambrose of Milan
    “Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

    Theodore of Mopsuestia
    “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

    Augustine
    “Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

    “I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

    “What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ” (ibid., 272).
     
  8. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Look at the entire writings (the ECF's...not Augustine as he was in the RCC period).

    As it is you are providing snips of these writings (probable from a secondary source).

    The ECF's went into great detail of the "body and blood" of Chrust in the Supper. They explained how the terms but not the elements changed.

    If you are lazy you can look at the previous thread. I liked the writings and quoted their denial that the elements changed.

    It was the Roman pagans that believed Christians literally ate flesh and drank blood. The ECF's explained the significance (which you quote) but also that it was the terms rather than the bread and wine that changed (the meaning).


    You could simply ask yourself why, after reading the ECF's, you chose to ignore those parts of their writing and snip the parts that sounded like they would not consider Roman Catholicism heresy.

    Even what you do provide doesn't support the elements changing.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    @Walter ,

    Here is some of what you have left out:

    Origen - “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist"

    Tertullian - This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body.

    Justin Martyr - “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood"

    Clement of Alexandria - "The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood”

    Cyprian - “I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ”

    Eusebius - "For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, . . . to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body".

    Augustine - “Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood”


    You have snipped out parts of the ECF that do not support Catholic paganism and used quotes out of context.

    Why did you think it was important to leave out those other comments? Do you believe that is honest?
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  10. MrW

    MrW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,351
    Likes Received:
    172
    Faith:
    Baptist
    “Private interpretation” means to isolate a verse of Scripture out of context to try to teach something that is against the rest of Scripture. It does not mean individual Christians cannot understand Scripture correctly. We are to “study to show ourselves approved”. Study the Bible, not catechisms or creeds.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  11. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thread closed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...