• 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!

Catholic Inventions?

Living4Him

New Member
{quote]L4H, Perhaps then, you ought to get past the thinking of an 8 year old, and get on with the meat of the word of God.[/quote]

See, no matter what I say, you will disagree ;)


{quote]...that are totally unproveable in the Bible; doctrines that take away from the grace of God; doctrines that deny salvation through grace by faith; doctrines that say that Jesus death was not necessary or sufficent for our sins.[/quote]

Now, you are just adding your own ideas here. The doctrines do not take away from the Grace of God.

The sacraments fill us with more of God's graces.

Christ sacrifice on Calvary redeemed the entire world. But, that doesn't mean that everyone is automatically going to heaven. The Mass pours out the boundless, redemptive power of the Sacrifice of the Cross. The Mass is the single most effective source of the grace by which Christ distributes the blessings of Calvary.

The bodily effects of Holy Communion are:
1. A corporal union with Christ.
2. The weakening of concupisences through a growing mastery of passion, and
3. an increase in on's title to eternal happiness after the resurrection of the body in heavenly glory.
 

D28guy

New Member
TP,

"Greetings,

To us catholics: You must eat my flesh and drink my blood, repeated 5 times MEANs: You must eat my flesh and drink my blood. We take Jesus on his word. Just like when he says: This is MY Body and This is my Blood at the last supper. Jesus says it, I believe it. Pretty simple. Not many Interpretation manuevers there."
So...Jesus said its literally His flesh.

So, you Catholics literally eat Jesus every Sunday, because after all He literally said that His flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed, right?

So...you dont mind if I send someone over to take a sample of one of the crackers and take it to a lab for a DNA test, so it will come back as being some type of human/Diety type of flesh, and not a wheat cracker?

I mean, it literally is His flesh, right?

You are literally eating His body, right?

No? You dont want me to do the lab test for DNA? Because it will come back as being a wheat cracker?

I know I know. I've heard it before. The cracker and wine literally become Christs literal flesh and His literal blood, BUT...they still retain the form of the "accidents", meaning the cracker and the wine.

Thats a neat trick. And very convenient.

It really is His body...except when its tested, and then its a cracker. But once the test is over it goes back to being His body again. Until someone else wants to do a test...then its a cracker again.

It *kinda* IS literally His flesh...when we want it to be! But its *kinda* NOT literally His flesh...when it might cause a problem! But then when the problem...the lab people...go away, it *kinda* IS literally His flesh again!

I gotta give you guys credit...you've got all the bases covered. But I guess that would figure...you've had 1700 years to work out all these little problems.

Sadly,

Mike
 

Living4Him

New Member
You are literally eating His body, right?

No? You dont want me to do the lab test for DNA? Because it will come back as being a wheat cracker?

I know I know. I've heard it before. The cracker and wine literally become Christs literal flesh and His literal blood, BUT...they still retain the form of the "accidents", meaning the cracker and the wine.

Thats a neat trick. And very convenient.

It really is His body...except when its tested, and then its a cracker. But once the test is over it goes back to being His body again. Until someone else wants to do a test...then its a cracker again.

It *kinda* IS literally His flesh...when we want it to be! But its *kinda* NOT literally His flesh...when it might cause a problem! But then when the problem...the lab people...go away, it *kinda* IS literally His flesh again!
Numerous Eucharistic miracles have authenticated the real presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament since earliest times in the Church. 1300 years ago in Lanciano, Italy, for example, the host was changed to real flesh and the wine was changed into blood - all this has been verified and documented by scientists. The miracle is still ongoing.

In the Holy Eucharist Jesus humbly assumes the appearance of bread. On occasions God's children have not always appreciated His presence, having abused the gift by receiving it unworthily or treating the Sacrament with indifference. For these reasons, perhaps, God has seen fit to prove His real presence through Eucharistic miracles.

In the city of Lanciano, Italy, around the year 700 of Our Lord there was a priest of the order of St. Basil who, though learned in the sciences of the world, was ignorant in ways of God, and was not strong in his faith. He was plagued by a doubt as to whether the consecrated Host was truly the Body of Christ, and the consecrated wine truly His Blood. He had difficulty believing in the mystery of transubstantiation (the miraculous changing of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ).

One morning, as he was celebrating Mass, he had already said the most holy words of consecration ("This is My Body..., This is my Blood..."), as Jesus had taught it to his Apostles, his doubts and errors weighed upon him more heavily than ever. By a most singular and marvelous grace, he saw the Bread changed into Flesh and the wine into Blood.
Frightened and confused by such a great and stupendous Miracle, he stood quite a while as if in a divine ecstasy; but eventually, his fear gave way to the spiritual happiness that filled his soul, and he turned his joyful yet tearful face to those around him, exclaiming "...Behold the Flesh and the blood of our Most Beloved Christ."

At those words, the bystanders ran to the altar and began, with tears, to cry for mercy. The faithful, who, having become witnesses themselves, spread the news throughout the entire city.

Today twelve centuries after the miraculous occurrence it remains intact, a sustained miracle! Upon a superficial examination, the Host of Flesh, which is still in one piece and has retained the dimensions of the original "Large Host", has a fibrous appearance and a brown color, which becomes light-reddish if one places a light in the back of the Ostensorium.
The blood, contained in the chalice, has an earthly color, inclined toward the yellow of ocher, and consists of five coagulated globules. Each of the parts is uneven in shape and size, and when weighed together, the total weight is equal to that of each piece.

The actual spot of the miracle is located beneath the present day tabernacle of the Church of St. Francis. The Miracle Itself is preserved in the second tabernacle, which is found in the high altar. The Host, now changed to Flesh, is contained in a silver Monstrance. The wine, now changed to Blood, is contained in a crystal chalice.

Scientific Studies

A rigorous scientific analysis was performed in 1970-71 by Professor Dr. Odorardo, University Professor in anatomy and pathological histology and in chemistry and clinical microscopy, Head Physician of the United Hospitals of Arezzo. Prof. Linoli was assisted by Prof. Dr. Ruggero Bertelli, a Professor Emeritus of anatomy at the University of Siena.

The research done on the fragments of the Blood and the Flesh yielded the following results:

The Blood of the Eucharistic Miracle is real blood and the Flesh is real flesh.
The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the myocardium (heart wall).
The Blood and the Flesh belong to the human species.
The blood type is identical in the Blood and in the Flesh, type AB.
The proteins in the blood are in the same proportions as those found in normal fresh blood.
There is no trace whatsoever of any materials or agents used for preservation of flesh or blood.

Science, when called to testify, has confirmed what we have believed in Faith and what the Catholic Church has taught for the last 2,000 years; echoing the words of Christ, "My Flesh is real food; my Blood real drink. Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood dwells continually in Me and I dwell in him."-John 6:56-57
 

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The scripture reference for:"Jesus, the lamb of God before the foundation of the world" is: I Peter 1:18-20,"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot; Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,..."

That is KJV. The Douay-Confraternity says about the same. This is also an interesting scripture regarding "traditions of the fathers". This is given by "The Rock" through "the pebble".

What is the response to the allegation that the drinking of blood is a pagan ritual?

Selah,

Bro. James
 
T

TP

Guest
Greetings

You joked: take it to a lab for a DNA test

Response: You and all atheists are working together. you see, that is the exact same aruement atheists make against the Incarnation. DNA tests of Jesus would not prove he is divine. Jesus was Just a man, you cannot prove scientifically he was God. If we had Jesus in a lab, he would just be a normal human being just like anyone else. Do deny the eucharist on this basis is also to make a slam dunk against the incarnation. biblical arguements, tradition arguements, etc are Okay in our discussion. But science cannot be used to prove faith.
peace
 

Living4Him

New Member
What is the response to the allegation that the drinking of blood is a pagan ritual?
The below is taken from Faith Facts by the CUF.org

Eat, Drink and Be Catholic: The Biblical Prohibition of Eating Blood


ISSUE: How is the prohibition of eating blood found in the Bible (cf.: Gen. 9:3-4, Lev. 17:10-14, and Acts 15:28-29) to be understood?

RESPONSE: The prohibition against eating blood found in the Old Testament was a discipline associated with the covenant between God and Noah, and incorporated into the Mosaic Covenant. When Jesus established the New Covenant through His death and resurrection, the disciplines of the Old Covenant became unnecessary. The discipline was maintained for a brief time in the early Church to protect new converts from scandal, but was not associated with the theological understanding of grace. When taken in context, we find that the consumption of blood is not forbidden and, moreover, it is necessary in the Eucharist.

DISCUSSION: When Adam sinned, he chose his own desires over the will of God. He desired knowledge over faith, and focused on his own person rather than that of God. In contrast, God calls us to turn our minds and hearts to something greater than ourselves. He calls us to know Him, to union with Him (Jn. 17:11, 20-21). This union with God is achieved through faith in Jesus Christ, Who is the perfect and full revelation of God (Jn. 1:14-18). This full revelation given by Christ is more than mere knowledge. It is a mystery that can only be grasped through faith.

The prohibition against eating blood was a discipline that reflected the mysteries of God’s revelation to the Jewish people at that point in history. This prohibition foreshadowed the complete revelation of Jesus Christ, and helped prepare the mind and heart of Israel to embrace the New Covenant in His Blood.

Old Testament

When God created Adam and Eve, He gave them “every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit” as food, except the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 1:29, 2:16-17). Though they had dominion over the animals, God did not give them the animals to eat.

After the Original Sin, sin was multiplied on the earth to the point that God saw need to destroy all men by sending a great flood. Only Noah, his household and the animals on the ark survived (Gen. 6-9). When the flood subsided, Noah offered a sacrifice to God. He “took of every clean animal and every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar” (Gen. 8:20). The sacrifice pleased God and He promised to never destroy the earth by flood again (Gen. 8:21-22). It was at that time that God placed a fear of man in every animal and gave the animals to Noah as food (Gen. 9:2-3). The only restriction God gave Noah regarding the eating of animals is that he was not to also eat their blood, for the life of the animal is in the blood (Gen. 9:4).

This prohibition is repeated three times in Leviticus 17:10-14, and was binding on both Israel and those people who lived among the sons of Israel. The entire text provides insight as to why God intended this discipline under the Old Law:

If any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, no person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood. Any man also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust.

For the life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.

Because man has dominion over the creatures of the earth, and because blood signified life, the animal’s blood was reserved for sacrifice to God alone, Who is the Author of Life. Originally, animals were not meant for food. They were meant to be companions of man and for his delight. After sin, when atonement was necessary for the salvation of man, the life of the animal was given for the life of man. Its life signified the life of the men who offered it. If a man raised animals or was a hunter, he could eat them, but their blood must be spilled upon the ground and covered with dust. This spilling of the blood was a type of sacrifice in that it reminded man that the animal’s life was given for him. If he offered the animal as a sacrifice to God, portions of the animal may have been eaten by the priests, or the entire animal burnt on the altar, depending on the type of sacrifice (Lev. 7). In all circumstances, the blood was spilled upon the altar and offered to God. In this way, the taking of an animal’s life always signified a turning from self to God, and God’s providence and mercy in caring for man.

In contrast, eating the blood signified a turning to self; a partaking in worldliness and sin; a rejection of the life given by God. The pagans did such things, and remained pagan. Their sacrifices were not pleasing to God. Those who violated the prohibition among the Israelites and ate the blood of animals were cut off from the people (Lev. 7:27, 17:10). They were not merely made impure by their act, they became outcasts from the people. This is the reason the Jews were reluctant to accept Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist, because to embrace this truth would seem contradictory to the Old Law they followed (Jn. 6:60-71).

Unlike the permanent, divine laws given on Mount Sinai (The 10 Commandments), the disciplinary laws of the Old Testament were temporary in nature, awaiting their fulfillment through the revelation of Christ. Having in view the New Covenant of Jesus’ Blood, these old disciplines were designed by God to prepare Israel for the New Covenant (Gal. 3:26-29). This prohibition was a disciplinary law abolished by Christ when He initiated the new and everlasting covenant in His Blood.

New Testament

Hebrews 9 offers a clear explanation of this New Covenant in relation to the Old, particularly in regard to the blood of animals:

According [to the Old Covenant], gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various ablutions, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation....Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Bringing the fullness of revelation to man, Jesus completes the Old Law and brings in the New. No longer does the blood of animals signify life for man, but rather the Blood of Jesus Himself, poured out in the New Covenant, gives us new life. What the blood of animals signified, the Blood of Christ provides. Because His Blood provides redemption, He commands us to drink it (Jn. 6:54).

God gave Noah the animals of the earth for food. This food was perishable and only provided for man’s bodily needs. Under the New Covenant, God gives us Jesus as our imperishable food (Jn. 6:27), and commands that we eat His flesh and drink His Precious Blood. Those who do so partake in eternal life (Jn. 6:54). Furthermore, this commandment to drink His blood proves the completion of the Old Law. As those who ate blood under the Old Law were cut off, so now those who drink the Blood of Christ are cut off from the Old Law and incorporated into the New.

New Law, New Discipline

Because of the New Law, the blood of an animal has no significance, for life is in the Blood of Christ. In Mark 7:18-23 (see also Mt. 15:17-20), Jesus declares that all foods, including animal blood, are “clean” and that to eat them is not a sin. This was emphasized to St. Peter in a dream, in which all “unclean” foods are declared “clean to eat” by God Himself (Acts 10). What concerns Jesus is not external ritual purity, which came from things like circumcision and ritual hand washing, but internal purity from sin which comes from living a morally upright life in God’s grace (Mt. 23:13-36).

Given the New Law, why is blood prohibited to Gentile converts in Acts 15:28-29, especially after Peter’s dream in Acts 10? Animal blood was prudently prohibited at that time in the Church out of deference to the converts from Israel who found it offensive. Keep in mind, Jews who called themselves Christians still associated with those Jews who were not Christian. Paul says in Romans 14:13-15 that no food is unclean, but that Christians must not scandalize each other with what they eat. To avoid scandal, certain foods were temporarily forbidden. Furthermore, food that contained blood was associated with pagan rituals. To avoid an association of Christianity with pagan rituals, the temporary discipline was maintained. In short, the purpose of the discipline was not theological -- as in the Old Testament -- but social. When the danger of scandal to Christianity ceased, this temporary discipline was abolished.

Jehovah’s Witnesses

The Jehovah’s Witnesses include in their moral code Old Testament ritual laws. They believe that ceremonial laws prohibiting the drinking of blood (Gen. 9:3-4; Lev. 17:14) are continued in the New Testament (Acts 15:28-29). They maintain a theological purpose for this prohibition without recognizing the truth about redemption through the Blood of Jesus. Because of their false theology, they erroneously extend the prohibition to blood transfusions. The consumption of blood and blood transfusions are not forbidden by God. In the words of Jesus, “whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him... [sins which proceed from the heart] defile a man,” (Mk. 7:18-23).

Conclusion

The purpose of man and his life on earth is to bring glory to God. All we do must point to Him and draw others to Him. Consequently, all disciplines and rituals of the Church must reflect the fullness of revelation given by Christ. Eating blood is no longer associated with impurity, and there is no prohibition in force to refrain from eating blood. However, insofar as eating blood causes scandal to others, Christians must heed the words of St. Paul and refrain from such acts. Most importantly, we are commanded to drink the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ for our salvation. Living in this way, we do not become slaves of the old, but fulfill the New Covenant in Charity and act as proper stewards of creation.
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
We come back to the Bible every time--something you seem unable to refute. Why not try believing it sometime.
DHK
Not quite--it is you come back to your misinterpretations of the Bible every time since you can't refute the correct interpretation which has been amply demonstrated. Perhaps it is you who should try believing the Bible sometime. :cool:
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />We come back to the Bible every time--something you seem unable to refute. Why not try believing it sometime.
DHK
Not quite--it is you come back to your misinterpretations of the Bible every time since you can't refute the correct interpretation which has been amply demonstrated. Perhaps it is you who should try believing the Bible sometime. :cool: </font>[/QUOTE]I do. The very fact that all of you with one accord spew out whatever the Magesterium orders you to, is proof enough that you don't have a mind of your own to study the Scriptures on your own to find out what it really says. At least I study the Bible. I know what I believe and why I believe it. So do you. You may or may not know what you believe. But if you don't you look to the Magesterium. And that is the reason you believe it. You don't beleive anything because the Bible says it, but because the Magesterium says it to be so.
But the Magesterium has proved itself to be wrong on many things. And yet you will blindly follow it any way: the blind leading the blind. There is no SS, even though that is amply demonstrated in Scripture. There is a direct disobedience to study the Scriptures even though that command is oft repeated in Scriptures, and the command that goes with it to interpret it for yourself as well.
There is no command to allow the Magesterium to interpret Scripture for you. That is just absurd.
I know what I beieve, because I have studied the Bible, and the Holy Spirit has led me in my study of the Scriptures. How strange it must seem to you that on issues concerning salvation and the nature of God, some basic issues where we disagree: people with backgrounds as diverse as Charismatic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Word of Life, and even SDA, will agee with me when using sola scriptura as a basis to work with.
DHK
 

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
You joked: take it to a lab for a DNA test

Response: You and all atheists are working together. you see, that is the exact same aruement atheists make against the Incarnation. DNA tests of Jesus would not prove he is divine. Jesus was Just a man, you cannot prove scientifically he was God. If we had Jesus in a lab, he would just be a normal human being just like anyone else. Do deny the eucharist on this basis is also to make a slam dunk against the incarnation. biblical arguements, tradition arguements, etc are Okay in our discussion. But science cannot be used to prove faith.
Christ's deity was not something that supposedly changed physical matter into something else. God (Deity) is spirit, and spirit cannot be detected physically. Now, if you're suggesting His body was really spirit, that's what the gnostics and other Monophysites said, and it is called "the doctrine of antichrist". And if you're saying that Christ occupies the bread and wine in the form of a spirit, spirit is not confined to space like we are. The only spiritual "presence" of God/Christ is the Holy Spirit, which is in us (hence, us partaking the meal as one Body; Christ has a spiritual "real presence" there!)
But funny, how your side nevertheless comes up with a scientific "proof" claim anyway!
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
The very fact that all of you with one accord spew out whatever the Magesterium orders you to, is proof enough that you don't have a mind of your own to study the Scriptures on your own to find out what it really says.
I'm not Roman Catholic. Therefore the "Magisterium" doesn't "order" me to do anything. :D


I know what I beieve, because I have studied the Bible, and the Holy Spirit has led me in my study of the Scriptures.
So He's led you to come to some diametrically opposed conclusions on key issues to which He has led other Christians?
"I don't think so, Tim".


How strange it must seem to you that on issues concerning salvation and the nature of God, some basic issues where we disagree: people with backgrounds as diverse as Charismatic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Word of Life, and even SDA, will agee with me when using sola scriptura as a basis to work with.
DHK
What I do think is strange is that on many key issues, using the supposedly objective means of sola Scriptura (oh, and the Holy Spirit's guidance, of course) you've come to different conclusions than many, many of your "brothers" resulting in schismatic fellowships and that somehow you think this relativism and denominationalsim is Spirit led. How sad.
(And there are many using sola Scriptura to support beliefs in unitarian or modalistic god as well. Don't forget the differences between the Calvinist and Arminian concepts of god--one is selectively loving, and one is all-loving--as well.
Psst(!)--D28, this is where you chime in about "checks and balances" and how it's "a beautiful thing"... :cool: )
 
V

violet

Guest
Why did the Ethiopian eunich ask that the Scriptures be explained to him? Why doesn't Philip just tell him to ask the Holy Spirit to tell him what it meant?
 

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
In the genes--if the DNA of Jesus and Joseph(the husband of Mary) were available, I have no doubt the results would indicate that Joseph was not the father. Some would have us to believe the father was a Roman soldier. That too, is purely hypothetical and speculative.

The conception of Jesus was a unique event in history. John said: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld Him, the only begotten of The Father..."

To suggest that the Holy Spirit, which overshadowed Mary, left a DNA trail borders the absurd. Jesus is all man--born of a woman. He is all God--conceived by the Holy Spirit.(theos + anthropos). Mankind is just corrupted clay.

Such a miraculous event has never been demonstrated in a laboratory--nor does it need to be.

Jesus told the Jewish leaders: "If you do not believe that I Am that I am, you will die in your sins." Their response was to try to stone Him--for blasphemy--He makes himself to be God.

Jesus is either God in the flesh, or He is the greatest imposter ever.

Whether these things can be demonstrated in the laboratory or not is irrelevant.

Selah,

Bro. James
 

D28guy

New Member
Doubting Thomas,

you've come to different conclusions than many, many of your "brothers" resulting in schismatic fellowships
That is regarding nonfoundational issues where we are given freedom regarding our convictions by Almighty God Himself. Needless to say, there is much much much shared truth in both differing views, with only a few areas of disagreement.

And of course God told us in advance about these things, and he DID NOT say anything like...

"BE SURE AND GET A MAJESTERIUM TOGETHER TO COMMAND EVERYONE WHAT TO BELIEVE!!!"

Rather, He said...

"Let your brother be fully convinced in his own mind...why do you judge your brother?...to his own master he stands or falls, and God will make Him stand"

We can believe God or we can...to our ruin...strip people of their God given freedom and put in force a Gestapo...I mean Magesterium...to control them and command them what they must believe.

The results are there to be observed, and in light of that the choice is easy.

God bless,

Mike
 
V

violet

Guest
Originally posted by D28guy:
Doubting Thomas,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />you've come to different conclusions than many, many of your "brothers" resulting in schismatic fellowships
That is regarding nonfoundational issues where we are given freedom regarding our convictions by Almighty God Himself. Needless to say, there is much much much shared truth in both differing views, with only a few areas of disagreement.

And of course God told us in advance about these things, and he DID NOT say anything like...

"BE SURE AND GET A MAJESTERIUM TOGETHER TO COMMAND EVERYONE WHAT TO BELIEVE!!!"

Rather, He said...

"Let your brother be fully convinced in his own mind...why do you judge your brother?...to his own master he stands or falls, and God will make Him stand"

We can believe God or we can...to our ruin...strip people of their God given freedom and put in force a Gestapo...I mean Magesterium...to control them and command them what they must believe.

The results are there to be observed, and in light of that the choice is easy.

God bless,

Mike
</font>[/QUOTE]God said this:
when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. John 16:13
Into ALL Truth-- not some. Not a smogasboard of beliefs to pick and choose from.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by violet:
Why did the Ethiopian eunich ask that the Scriptures be explained to him? Why doesn't Philip just tell him to ask the Holy Spirit to tell him what it meant?
In Acts 17:11 we have gentiles who like the Ethiopian DO believe in the ONE TRUE GOd and DO read the scriptures of the ONE TRUE GOD.

When the teaching of scripture is explained to them they don't simply swallow "Whatever a heretic might say about it" -- as if they were so easily duped. Rather the Holy Spirit works with them and they USE the scriptrues to "SEE IF those things are so".

In both the cases they are learning something new - something they did not understand before. IN both cases they are combing the scriptures with the guidance of the Holy Spirit to SEE that what they are being told "is so".

There is no case of "be duped by every person that comes along" as "God's model"!!

The RC argument is that if LEARNING occurs AT ALL in the context of something you are told - then why not put the Bible on the shelf as "untrustworthy for doctrinal validation" and just believe whatever you are told. They recreate the "Mormon model" over and over again.

In Christ,

Bob
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
Originally posted by D28guy:
[QB] Doubting Thomas,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />you've come to different conclusions than many, many of your "brothers" resulting in schismatic fellowships
That is regarding nonfoundational issues where we are given freedom regarding our convictions by Almighty God Himself. </font>[/QUOTE]Of course, whether they are "nonfoundational" or not is the issue for debate. You say they are not, but there are others (SS advocates) with whom you claim to agree who would suggest that there are certain "foundational" views that you actually deny. Such as Baptismal regeneration (Lutherans, some Anglicans, Church of Christ, etc.); Or the "real presence" (Lutherans, some Anglicans); or whether salvation can indeed be forfeited (the vast majority of Christians through the ages have affirmed this). So many different groups, using "sola Scriptura" have actually arrived at a different set of foundational beliefs from each other which has led to and maintained divisions in Christendom. They would deny that some of the things that you so flippantly dispense with "well, let each one just be convinced in his own mind" are in fact dispensible for salvation. (This is not to mention the Oneness Pentecostals who using "sola Scriptura" have denied the Holy Trinity and would suggest that "trinitarianism" is "nonfoundational")

Now you can limit the "foundationals" to only those things that you think are "foundational", in which case "those who agree on the foundationals" turn out to be only the ones who actually agree with you on what is considered, "foundational". You really can't escape the tautology.

Needless to say, there is much much much shared truth in both differing views, with only a few areas of disagreement.
Yet some of those areas of "disagreement" are considered "foundational" by the other "sola Scriptura" denominations. And these differences--"foundational" or not--are enough to keep Christians divided into schismatic, competing denominations against the wishes of Christ.
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
BobRyan:
In Acts 17:11 we have gentiles who like the Ethiopian DO believe in the ONE TRUE GOd and DO read the scriptures of the ONE TRUE GOD.

When the teaching of scripture is explained to them they don't simply swallow "Whatever a heretic might say about it" -- as if they were so easily duped. Rather the Holy Spirit works with them and they USE the scriptrues to "SEE IF those things are so".

In both the cases they are learning something new - something they did not understand before. IN both cases they are combing the scriptures with the guidance of the Holy Spirit to SEE that what they are being told "is so".
However, it was the Apostolic Preaching that illumined the OT for these Bereans. Had they not heard this and received it, they likely would have continued to misinterpret the OT in the manner of the other nonbelieving Jews.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
I am agreeing that teaching/learning something new can easily "Also come" from outside sources guided by the Holy Spirit in addition to the Holy Spirit working directly with the individual as they read scripture.

I am simply pointing out that the RC model of "magesterium has the Holy Spirit - you do not so you have to believe whatever anyone says who claims to have authority" is not Biblical.

The Holy Spirit works with EACH person as they read scripture and guides EACH into all truth. This basic part of the New Covenant promise itself!! Read it in Heb 8.

The fact that truth is ALSO conveyed by the Holy Spirit through the evangelistic work of Spirit filled evangelists does not "challenge" or contradict the individual work of the Holy Spirit.

But EVEN in the case of an Apostle speaking to a NON-Christian - it was the role of the Holy Spirit to SHOW the non-Christian IN SCRIPTURE whether or not the APOSTLE is telling the truth. And obviously the non-Christian does not know to start with - that this person CLAIMING to be an Apostle is actually telling the truth!

In Christ,

Bob
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by violet:
Why did the Ethiopian eunich ask that the Scriptures be explained to him? Why doesn't Philip just tell him to ask the Holy Spirit to tell him what it meant?
1. God uses men to do his work. He gave the great commission, not to the Catholic Church, but to all genuine believers in Christ:

Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
--This, of course, goes directly against the monastic life allowable by the Catholic Church.

2. God commanded Philip specifically to go to the Eunuch.

Acts 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
--Who said the Holy Spirit wasn't involved.
As I said, The Holy Spirit uses men. He could have used angels but he didn't. He could have used an authoritative voice booming out of heaven, but he didn't. He could crack people over the head with a baseball bat, but he doesn't. He uses men to carry out his great commission, and that is what Philip was doing. He was doing then, what we are commanded today to do. His method has not changed.

3. His method has not changed in that Philip used SS. He used only the Bible to lead the Ethiopian to the Lord. He used the very Scripture that the Eunuch was reading "and preached unto him Christ." One preacher said, "Christ can be found on every page of the Bible." But to the unsaved, "who are spiritually discerned," he cannot be found, and the truths of the Bible are a mystery to him. Thus God uses men (believers) to preach the gospel to them. What was Paul's commisssion:

1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

1 Corinthians 9:16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!

Paul knew about the serious consequences of neglecting the duty of not preaching the gospel. It is the duty of every Christian to preach the gospel, to carry out the Great Commission. This is what Philip was doing. It is not God's method to send the Holy Spirit and direct an unsaved man to salvation. He uses other men.
DHK
 
Top