Catechisms

The Eastern Orthodox Church would disagree about the Pope ... and some even predate the Bishop of Rome. [just saying ... 1054 and all that.]

 

On the actual subject of Catechisms (Rather than the Church in Rome) ... I like the Heidelberg Catechism. I particularly like the presentations that include the verse links supporting the statements so I can go look them up in context.


DAY 1:

Q & A 1
Q. What is your only comfort
in life and in death?

A. That I am not my own,1
but belong—

body and soul,
in life and in death—2

to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ.3

He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood,4
and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil.5
He also watches over me in such a way6
that not a hair can fall from my head
without the will of my Father in heaven;7
in fact, all things must work together for my salvation.8

Because I belong to him,
Christ, by his Holy Spirit,
assures me of eternal life9
and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready
from now on to live for him.10

1 1 Cor. 6:19-20
2 Rom. 14:7-9
3 1 Cor. 3:23; Titus 2:14
4 1 Pet. 1:18-19; 1 John 1:7-9; 2:2
5 John 8:34-36; Heb. 2:14-15; 1 John 3:1-11
6 John 6:39-40; 10:27-30; 2 Thess. 3:3; 1 Pet. 1:5
7 Matt. 10:29-31; Luke 21:16-18
8 Rom. 8:28
9 Rom. 8:15-16; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; 5:5; Eph. 1:13-14
10 Rom. 8:1-17

Q & A 2
Q. What must you know to
live and die in the joy of this comfort?

A. Three things:

first, how great my sin and misery are;1
second, how I am set free from all my sins and misery;2
third, how I am to thank God for such deliverance.3

1 Rom. 3:9-10; 1 John 1:10
2 John 17:3; Acts 4:12; 10:43
3 Matt. 5:16; Rom. 6:13; Eph. 5:8-10; 2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Pet. 2:9-10

 

Here's a good one for our Catechism (and Puritan) enthusiasts...

Thomas Goodwin, Church Order Explained in a Way of Catechism:

 

#126 of John Calvin's own Catechism of the Church of Geneva !

 

---> "The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (Luke 24:7)

---> "Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification."(Romans 4:25)

---> "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." (1 Cor 15:17)



When Christ said, "It is finished", He had not yet died, nor rose from the dead. Hence, "It is finished" could not be referring to His atoning work, because it was not finished at that point.

To understand what happened and was finished on Good Friday, you have to go back to what began in the Upper Room on the evening before. It is only in this context does it become clear what our Blessed Lord is referring to.

(Hint: It involves bread and wine.)

 

None of your verses state or imply that Christ is perpetually dying and people must "recharge" their salvation by eating a magical wafer and drinking a magical shot of wine.

Yes, in the upper room Jesus is celebrating the Passover meal and changing the remembrance from the Passover lamb to the Lamb of God who saved his people so that the elect of God might enter the promised land. It is a glorious symbol of what Jesus is doing for his chosen ones.
Unfortunately, Rome, being the center of paganism, butchered and misunderstood entirely what Jesus was saying in the upper room. Instead, they created their own legalistic tradition that is devoid of God and God's grace. Their ceremonial tradition entirely misses the point Jesus was making to his disciples. Because they butchered it so badly, they have pointed millions toward hell. It is only because God has chosen a remnant in the Roman Catholic Church that anyone there is redeemed. God saves despite the abomination of Rome.

 

It's back!



(Another one of your straw man fallacies.)

What happened on Good Friday began on Holy Thursday. Without the context of Holy Thursday, you cannot understand what was finished on Calvary. The passion of Christ actually began at the Last Supper, where the new covenant was established and instituted...

--> "Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'" (Mt. 26:26-28)

--> "And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, 'Take; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, 'This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.'" (Mark 14:22-24)

--> "And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me' And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.'" (Luke 22:19-20)


It is at this moment when the new Moses, Jesus Christ, fulfills the type / figure of the old covenant of Moses in Exodus with the new reality of the Eucharistic sacrifice...


Exodus 24 (The figure) ---> The hill, the altar, the twelve, the blood, Moses, the covenant, the eating the drinking and communion with God ---> Points to the reality of the new now being fulfilled by Jesus Christ ---> The Upper Room, the altar, the twelve, the blood, the New Moses, the new covenant, the eating and drinking and communion with God.


This is finished (consummated) on the Cross on Good Friday. The Last Supper is what is consummated / completed / finished when Jesus is on the cross. The Last Supper and Calvary are one single event; for Christ is both the high priest and the victim (Hebrews 9:11-12).

 

Nope. You just can't stand it when I point out the flaws of your denomination and its catechism.

 

Thanks.
I like that TYPOLOGY.

The Presbyterians see the New Covenant "established" in Acts 2 where the verbiage is similar to the OT Covenant establishment and the Holy Spirit enters the picture as the seal of the new covenant.

At any rate, I still do not think that affirms Transubstantiation (or Cosubstantiation) if that was even part of the topic ... [I came to talk Catechisms].

 

I have the same fundamental problem with the Catholic Catechism that I have with the Westminster Confession of Faith ... both are too long and unpleasant to read to really be enjoyable. So I do not read either Catechism unless I have a VERY specific question that I want a formal denominational answer to.

Needless to say, I tend to agree with the WCoF more than the CotCC, which is probably a good thing for a Reformed Baptist. If I found myself disagreeing with the WCoF and agreeing with the CotCC, then I should probably look into the RCC if I like Popes or the Eastern Orthodox Church if I don't. (There is a large Greek Orthodox community in Tarpon Springs, FL that seem to have a lot of exciting holidays ... if I leaned towards Orthodox, I could do worse than Greek cooking!) As it is, I'll just stick with Protestant Potluck dinners and keep clear of the seafood.

 

Glad to read you like it. I find it fascinating.

Jesus is clear the New Covenant was established at the Last Supper, which occurred prior to Acts 2. Ergo, it could not have been established in Acts 2. I would say Acts 2 is clear that we become incorporated / born into this promised new covenant via the waters of baptism. (cf. Acts 2:38)

I did not post that to somehow try and prove Transubstantiation, but rather to explain what Christ meant by "It is finished." (Transubstantiation is merely the use of metaphysics to rationally explain the great mystery which Christ gave in the New Covenant in the Upper Room, whereby man now has true communion with Him.)

I'll close the loop and tie this back to typology by noting that if the Eucharist is NOT the actual body and blood of Christ, it would be the first time in salvation history where the type / figure of something exceeded the reality of it.


Have a great weekend and God bless.

 

Tarpon Springs is great! The best sponges come from the Greek divers there.

I have always wondered why serious Protestants seeking the truth don't consider Orthodoxy more often. For it seems like a safe alternative to Rome, as you receive authentic Apostolic Christianity with the Divine Mysteries, without all the "baggage" associated with Rome, i.e. popes, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Reformation itself, contraception, etc.

Look East...

 

ITs got a God name tag. You believe it, and I probably would too if I were in your shoes.

Up until you have to smother mercy and kindness with a pillow. You are like a beaten wife....."he loves me".

You wouldn't object to any evil "God" does. Might makes right.

If the DEVIL held the gun of being omnipotent or a crown, or actually got control I would expect you to betray.

The principles that Jesus Christ stand for are meaningless to you, power is everything, kindness is weak. And just like you said yourself you see no place for kindness or love in justice.

You say the Catholic Church is not loving, but your church is. But you can't even name 5 people God loves in your church.



Jesus COMMANDS how we should handle our dispute,

Matthew 18
15“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16“But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

YOU BETRAY CHRIST.
You have sat yourself as the judge of what is the legit church based on.
Whether You have decided all, most or some catholics are reprobates,


Lets handle this as Jesus says. whats going to be the objection?

You must personally pope and judge who the church is. YOU think church has to be elect people only. If that were the case there wouldn't be an issue of winning your brother and his being kicked out.

 

The new Covenant was not established until Jesus died, and was raised again, and by faith we enter into that Covenant, not by water baptism!

 

the true church of Christ is made up ONLY of the redeemed, the elect from Adam forward!

 

Here's my Scripture...

--> "Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'" (Mt. 26:26-28)

--> "And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, 'Take; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, 'This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.'" (Mark 14:22-24)

--> "And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me' And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.'" (Luke 22:19-20)


Please show me yours stating the New Covenant was instituted by Jesus at some other time post-resurrection.


As for your rejection of baptism, here is St. Paul refuting you, whereby he contrasts the entrance into the old covenant via circumcision to the entrance into the new covenant via baptism...

---> “In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Col 2:11-12)


In Christianity, matter...matters.

 

paul called that spiriotual baptism, as that is the baptizing done on us by Holy Spirit via new birth when Jesus received thru faith, not water baptism!
And did Jesus yell salvation was accomplished at that Supper, or upon that Cross?

 

There is only ONE baptism.

---> "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." - Eph 4:5

Read this post ---> Catechisms

Salvation was not completed on the Cross because He had not yet risen from the dead. What was completed on the Cross began the evening before in the Upper Room.

 

Jesus stated that it was finished, do you know more about it then He does?

Paul states to us by One Spirit we were all baptized, so what counts is Spirit baptism, not water one!

 

Wow, you hate while you claim love.
How is it that you so badly miss the mark of what God has spoken in scripture? Is that because you are the product of Rome?