Catholic Question ???

[Thinkingstuff]

"they appeared in glory" And?? Christ appeared in glory though he had not risen from the dead. The point here is that the resurrection has not yet taken place, and therefore it is safe to assume that the Lord allowed them to appear in a temporary body.

The point is that the facts are that they appeared in body. They appeared in Glory. To discuss the "type" of body is pure speculation. Which is what you are doing. And getting away from the very clear point that Moses who had died was speaking to Jesus and was seen by the disciples as they lived. You don't know if it was a permament body or termpory and anyway its a bit irrelevant to the discussion. What we do know (that we don't have to speculate on) is that there was interaction by someone who had died (but actually alive in Christ) and those who were living. It set the precedent.

Concerning Elijah we cannot be dogmatic on what happened. It is true he was taken up into heaven.

which is called assumption.

But his earthly body would not enter into heaven.

You don't know that! Again speculation. Not that I necissarily disagree but you are speculating.

Only a glorified body without the stain of sin could enter into heaven.

At least we agree sin cannot be in heaven.

There is too much speculation here to say dogmatically what happened. We just know that he did not die a natural death and that is all.

I agree you are speculating. But he does set precedent for it happening that a man is assumed into heaven.

How did the disciples recognize those that they had never seen? The only answer here is by divine revelation.

Possibly and most likely. It could be Jesus told them. I could be they wore name tags. But whether it was divine revelation or something else it doesn't change the occurance or the precedent that was set.

The Lord told them who they were, otherwise they would not know.

Ok.

Saints do not know what is going on. That goes against Scripture (no more sorrow, no more pain, no more tears).

It obviously doesn't go against scripture as both Moses and Elijah discussed with Jesus his up comming trials. Which, had they been temporaly based they would have been just as distraught at the disciples. However, in heaven they can see the greater picture and the greater glory of Go. Its clear they knew what was going on. As the scriptures tells us in both Luke and Matthew.

I don't believe the Lord would allow it.

Its in scripture. We find the white robed Martyrs in Revelation knowing they haven't been avenged. The real issue I see is what your first state. You don't believe. Not that it isn't in scriptures, but you don't chose to believe.

Just because God allowed Moses and Elijah to appear with Christ does not give any precedent to others knowing what is happening on earth.

If they didn't know what was going on they wouldn't have know about the upcoming trials of Christ either. You're contradicting Scripture.

Just because Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven, does not give any precedent that any other individual was assumed into heaven.

It gives precedent. Which is a principle that occured previously. Or "prior in time, order, or significance". The fact that it happened shows that it can happen. The fact is you don't know if it would or wouldn't happen again. However, since it did happen we know it can happen.

That he does not mention it with approval is in favor of a practice done by pagans not by Corinthians. Baptism is discussed in chapter one of the epistle, where Paul states that he thanks God he baptized none of them except a few. The others knew who baptized them. The church was carnal but they wore their baptism like a badge of honor: being baptized by Paul, or Peter, or Apollos, etc. They would have never taken upon themselves this practice.

You are speculating to the act. But clearly you leave open the possiblity that Christian Corinthians (whom you believe were not baptized by Paul or the apostles) could have been conducting this practice. Thus you also find in incongruous that Paul would talk about a pagan action of baptizing the dead while in the middle of addressing the Corinthians about a belief that isn't equivelant in pagan culture.

This is a long chapter of 58 verses and covers many topics.

But he's not covering a new topic in the middle of the topic he's speaking about. He's not bipolar.

He introduces it by giving an example of a pagan custom and relates that to the resurrection

Possibly or possibly not. Its really not clear in the passage but it still seems incongruent that he would in the middle of speaking about the resurrection bring up a non related practice of a group that holds no similarity to his Christian Corinthians.

He also goes on to speak of his relation to the pagans and their persecution of him.

Which is totally congruous with his discussion. Because it makes sense to bring up that if he didn't believe in the resurrection why did he risk his life? It doesn't make sense to bring up what the local pagans were doing.

No, just a change in topic in a very long chapter.

Change of topic in a middle of a speach about the resurrection? I think not.

That is totally unbiblical and has no support anywhere in Scripture. There is no church in heaven.

As I pointed out the body of believers in heaven are often symbolized as the bride which is a singular body. But we know that body is a multitude of those who believe thus the assembly of believers are the "bride" a single body taken unto christ for himself. This body is the Church in heaven.

The church "ekklesia" is always local. The word means assembly, and is never used in a universal sense.

Ekklesia means a gathering of those called out. The Roman Senate was one such body which this term applied. Called out for a specific purpose. Thus not just any assembly though in general an assembly but to a specific purpose. All those called out of the world are a part of that Assembly. Jesus said

The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one - John 17:22

Note therefore you can't be one if you are all seperate. Paul teaches us to

complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind -Phil 2:2

And thus Paul expresses this teaching to the entirety of believers when he says

For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,

note Paul doesnt say churches. And if he only meant the church in Romans then that means Christ doesn't nurish any other church than the one in Rome. And I don't think you want to go there. :tongue3:

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I'm going to try to return this to the OP as this thread is all over the place and it seems much of the commentary here would belong on the 'Sacraments' thread.

Walter, sorry for derailing the thread, and I think you are right that much of the recent discussion, particularly between DHK and myself, would fit better in the Sacrament thread. To that end, I won't be posting in this thread any longer, but I think a couple of comments can be made regarding my discussion with DHK. Much of the confusion regarding sacraments and salvation involve two issues:

(1) the meanings of 'faith' and 'works', and whether any particular act that one DOES can be an act/expression of faith (ie of RECEIVING a GIFT) or if it necessarily reduces to a meritorious effort to earn one's salvation [Related to this is the distinction between acts/expressions of faith, and the actual object of one's faith].

(2) the exact meanings of 'real', 'literal', 'physical', 'spiritual', and 'symbolic' and the possible relationships that may exist among these--much of the confusion, seems to be in imprecise definitions assumed for the above AND in one's opinion/presumptions about how these things/ideas may or must be related to each other.

I hope to explore these issues in the near future (2-3 weeks, perhaps?) in a separate thread, but for now I need to be back to other things in my life I've been neglecting.

Meanwhile, back to the original topic of discussion...

 

[Walter]

Walter, sorry for derailing the thread, and I think you are right that much of the recent discussion, particularly between DHK and myself, would fit better in the Sacrament thread. To that end, I won't be posting in this thread any longer, but I think a couple of comments can be made regarding my discussion with DHK. Much of the confusion regarding sacraments and salvation involve two issues:

(1) the meanings of 'faith' and 'works', and whether any particular act that one DOES can be an act/expression of faith (ie of RECEIVING a GIFT) or if it necessarily reduces to a meritorious effort to earn one's salvation [Related to this is the distinction between acts/expressions of faith, and the actual object of one's faith].

(2) the exact meanings of 'real', 'literal', 'physical', 'spiritual', and 'symbolic' and the possible relationships that may exist among these--much of the confusion, seems to be in imprecise definitions assumed for the above AND in one's opinion/presumptions about how these things/ideas may or must be related to each other.

I hope to explore these issues in the near future (2-3 weeks, perhaps?) in a separate thread, but for now I need to be back to other things in my life I've been neglecting.

Meanwhile, back to the original topic of discussion...

You were not the one derailing the thread. The initiator of the OP started accusing the Catholic Church (and I assume he would include the Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Orthodox, etc.) of being false churches because of their understanding of sacraments being 'acts/expressions of faith' even though, as you said, they are a 'means of union with CHRIST, ordained by CHRIST HIMSELF. Sacraments are visible acts of FAITH.'

I find it difficult not to respond to the accusations myself. Seems like regardless of what the OP might be regarding catholicism, posters on this board will begin accusing Catholics of everything they believe is un-scriptural about the Faith: Mary, the Pope, sacraments, Mary, Purgatory, Saint worship, the Real Presence, Mary, 'Extra-Books', Immaculate Conception, Idolatry, and of course, Mary.

I'm looking forward to the thread in which you can go into more depth on the discussion you were having with DHK. I'm learning a lot from you (and others) on this board. Thats why I'm here.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I find it difficult not to respond to the accusations myself. Seems like regardless of what the OP might be regarding catholicism, posters on this board will begin accusing Catholics of everything they believe is un-scriptural about the Faith: Mary, the Pope, sacraments, Mary, Purgatory, Saint worship, the Real Presence, Mary, 'Extra-Books', Immaculate Conception, Idolatry, and of course, Mary.

Too Funny! :laugh:

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter
I find it difficult not to respond to the accusations myself. Seems like regardless of what the OP might be regarding catholicism, posters on this board will begin accusing Catholics of everything they believe is un-scriptural about the Faith: Mary, the Pope, sacraments, Mary, Purgatory, Saint worship, the Real Presence, Mary, 'Extra-Books', Immaculate Conception, Idolatry, and of course, Mary.

Too Funny! :laugh:

Yeah, that was pretty good. :thumbs:

 

[Baptist4life]

.....posters on this board will begin accusing Catholics of everything they believe is un-scriptural about the Faith: Mary, the Pope, sacraments, Mary, Purgatory, Saint worship, the Real Presence, Mary, 'Extra-Books', Immaculate Conception, Idolatry, and of course, Mary.

Too Funny! :laugh:

This is so sad. Someday when you stand before the Lord, you won't be laughing, or think those things are "funny".

 

[Bronconagurski]

This is so sad. Someday when you stand before the Lord, you won't be laughing, or think those things are "funny".

Then it will be too late.

 

[DHK]

The point is that the facts are that they appeared in body. They appeared in Glory. To discuss the "type" of body is pure speculation. Which is what you are doing. And getting away from the very clear point that Moses who had died was speaking to Jesus and was seen by the disciples as they lived. You don't know if it was a permament body or termpory and anyway its a bit irrelevant to the discussion. What we do know (that we don't have to speculate on) is that there was interaction by someone who had died (but actually alive in Christ) and those who were living. It set the precedent.

There was no precedent set.
There was no precedent set when Moses saw the glory of God on Mt. Sinai and communed with him as one who saw him "face to face."
There was no precedent set when Israel crossed Red Sea.
There was no precedent set when Joshua commanded the sun to stand still.
There was no precedent set when Jesus walked on water.
There was no precedent set when Jesus commanded Lazarus to come forth from the grave.

All of these were historical events never again to be repeated in history.
No precedent was set forth in the Transfiguration. The lesson to be learned was given by the Father himself:

Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
--From the account we are told to listen to Christ.
We are told that he is the Son of God.
We learn that Christ is deity.
The entire event centers around Christ, not Moses and Elijah.

God allowed all of this to happen to cement in these three disciples' minds who Christ really was. It was such an amazing event that they were not allowed to tell anyone until after the resurrection, for no one would understand them. They would pass them off as being crazy.

which is called assumption.

And your point is?
Elijah was miraculously taken up into heaven, or assumed into heaven.
That doesn't mean anyone else, other than Enoch wast. We don't know the details of it. We don't know the science, exactly what happened. We simply know God took him.

You don't know that! Again speculation. Not that I necissarily disagree but you are speculating.

This is not speculation. Paul plainly tells us that nothing that defiles can enter into heaven. We have a corruptible body. It cannot enter heaven. It needs to put on incorruption. This mortal needs to put on immortal. This earthly body needs a celestial body. It cannot enter heaven as it is. Even the science works against it. It would burn up going through the atmosphere. It would not be able to breathe. Only a glorified body would be able to do those things. Read the 15th chapter of 1Corinthians. Also read 2Cor.5. We must put off this earthly tabernacle. It is a necessity.

I agree you are speculating. But he does set precedent for it happening that a man is assumed into heaven.

There is as much precedent set here as there is for an axe head to float (2Kings 6:5-7).
There is as much precedent set here as there is for a man to kill 600 men with an ox goad (Judges 3:31)
There is as much precedent set here as there is for a woman's jar of meal never running out and her jar of oil never emptying (1Kings 17:16)
There is as much precedent set here as there is for the Lord to appear to you if you just ride on a horse, and he will speak to and he will blind you with a message from heaven, just as he did with Saul. That set a precedent for every believer for divine revelation didn't it? Ask any Charismatic?

It was a historical event, never again to be repeated. It didn't set any precedent. There is no one else that was assumed. It gave no precedent for necromancy, for talking to the dead, to the spirits, to Mary, or to worship any other but God. Praying to another is idolatry.

Possibly and most likely. It could be Jesus told them. I could be they wore name tags. But whether it was divine revelation or something else it doesn't change the occurance or the precedent that was set.

There was no precedent set. It was an historical event! Go walk on water.

 

[DHK]

It obviously doesn't go against scripture as both Moses and Elijah discussed with Jesus his up comming trials.

God allowed that. It was an historical event. God allowed Samuel to appear to Saul via the medium of a witch. Does that set the precedent that we should all go to witches to speak to our loved ones. That is the logic you are using.

Which, had they been temporaly based they would have been just as distraught at the disciples. However, in heaven they can see the greater picture and the greater glory of Go. Its clear they knew what was going on. As the scriptures tells us in both Luke and Matthew.

You are speculating. They don't know what is going on, otherwise they would be in plain misery at the actions of the RCC today. What happened yesterday with the L.A. Cardinal and the reaction of the entire world toward him. Most of the Catholic world does not want this cardinal at the upcoming conclave because of his coverup of sexual abuse. It is a black eye on the RCC to have sexual predators and those that condone them to be selecting the next pope!!
And then you think those that are in heaven praising the Lord where no more tears are, are watching all of this?? Some common sense is in order here.

Its in scripture. We find the white robed Martyrs in Revelation knowing they haven't been avenged. The real issue I see is what your first state. You don't believe. Not that it isn't in scriptures, but you don't chose to believe.

Context is key. The context is the seven year Tribulation period which they know will end when Christ comes. You fail to take context into account.

If they didn't know what was going on they wouldn't have know about the upcoming trials of Christ either. You're contradicting Scripture.

Tribulation saints just came out of the Tribulation. They know that there is an end to it. It ends when Christ comes to avenge Israel of its enemies.

It gives precedent. Which is a principle that occured previously.

Your misunderstanding of Scripture gives no precedent for your idolatry.

Or "prior in time, order, or significance". The fact that it happened shows that it can happen.

The fact that Jesus walked on water showed that he could; not that you can.
The fact that Samuel appeared to Saul via a witch showed that God allowed it; not that you should go to witches.

The fact is you don't know if it would or wouldn't happen again. However, since it did happen we know it can happen.

Your logic doesn't make sense. Do you consult witches just because it happened?

You are speculating to the act. But clearly you leave open the possiblity that Christian Corinthians (whom you believe were not baptized by Paul or the apostles) could have been conducting this practice. Thus you also find in incongruous that Paul would talk about a pagan action of baptizing the dead while in the middle of addressing the Corinthians about a belief that isn't equivelant in pagan culture.

I gave you Scripture. You give me opinion. I take Scripture over your opinion. I didn't speculate. I expounded the Word of God for you.

But he's not covering a new topic in the middle of the topic he's speaking about. He's not bipolar. Possibly or possibly not. Its really not clear in the passage but it still seems incongruent that he would in the middle of speaking about the resurrection bring up a non related practice of a group that holds no similarity to his Christian Corinthians. Which is totally congruous with his discussion. Because it makes sense to bring up that if he didn't believe in the resurrection why did he risk his life? It doesn't make sense to bring up what the local pagans were doing.

Change of topic in a middle of a speach about the resurrection? I think not.

Think what you will. He starts out speaking of the gospel, salvation, moves on to the resurrection of Christ, then the witnesses of the resurrection of Christ, and then our resurrection. He diverts the topic to eschatology and the Kingdom for a bit and speaks of the eternal state, explaining how in the end all things will be under his feet. That is a diversion. Then he goes into another topic concerning paganism which he works back into the resurrection. Then he will come to the why of the resurrection. And then the nature of the resurrection body.
In the end he will conclude to be steadfast and unwavering in their service for the Lord.
These are different topics. Some of them very different then others.

As I pointed out the body of believers in heaven are often symbolized as the bride which is a singular body. But we know that body is a multitude of those who believe thus the assembly of believers are the "bride" a single body taken unto christ for himself. This body is the Church in heaven.

There is no church in heaven. Your ecclesiology leaves much to be desired.

Ekklesia means a gathering of those called out. The Roman Senate was one such body which this term applied. Called out for a specific purpose. Thus not just any assembly though in general an assembly but to a specific purpose. All those called out of the world are a part of that Assembly.

They can't assemble. You go against the definition of the word. Where do they assemble? For what purpose? What do they do? Where do all the believers in the world congregate or assemble. If it is an assembly they must, by definition assemble! Where? Please answer!

Jesus said Note therefore you can't be one if you are all seperate.

That was his great High Priestly Prayer, and in context he was speaking of his disciples.

Paul teaches us to

Paul was addressing only the church at Philippi. We can make some applications from that epistle to ourselves.

And thus Paul expresses this teaching to the entirety of believers when he says note Paul doesnt say churches. And if he only meant the church in Romans then that means Christ doesn't nurish any other church than the one in Rome. And I don't think you want to go there. :tongue3:

I would love to go there. Paul was writing to the church at Rome, and only to the church at Rome. He gives instructions to the church at Rome and to no other church but the one at Rome. That is who that epistle was for. We can make some applications, where applicable for ourselves.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is so sad. Someday when you stand before the Lord, you won't be laughing, or think those things are "funny".

I appreciate your concern for my eternity. And I love the Lord. However, hope rather, than being sorry for either, you or I, for misunderstanding something, that you and I would be participant at the wedding feast of the lamb together. I will pray for you as I hope you will pray for me.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Go walk on water.

Wow DHK! I appreciate your confidence in me. However, I unfortunately like Paul have not yet arrived. Though it is interesting to note Peter also walked on water for time. And this happened before the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Still, I am certain I have a long way to go before that happens. Though I must say thank you.

 

[DHK]

Wow DHK! I appreciate your confidence in me. However, I unfortunately like Paul have not yet arrived. Though it is interesting to note Peter also walked on water for time. And this happened before the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Still, I am certain I have a long way to go before that happens. Though I must say thank you.

Did it not set a precedent for you. Or are you now simply making excuses for those things you cannot do.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There was no precedent set.

Did it happen? Yes. Then precedent is set.

There was no precedent set when Moses saw the glory of God on Mt. Sinai and communed with him as one who saw him "face to face."

Yes it was. Doesn't the bible promise that we will see him face to face 1 John 3:2

There was no precedent set when Israel crossed Red Sea.

Yes it was and it happened again when Israel crossed the Jordan. And it happened again as Elijah went to be with God. And it happened again as Elisha crossed back after Elijah was taken up.

There was no precedent set when Joshua commanded the sun to stand still.

Yes it was. If God could do it the first time he could do it again.

There was no precedent set when Jesus walked on water.

Yes it was as we see Peter walking on water as well.

There was no precedent set when Jesus commanded Lazarus to come forth from the grave

Yes it was. Didn't the dead all around Jerusalem raise up from the dead and many saw them? Will not you and I also raise from the dead?

All of these were historical events never again to be repeated in history.

except for the sun standing still every single one has happened again as I've shown.

No precedent was set forth in the Transfiguration.

Certainly it was. If God could do it once he can certainly do it again. Whether he has or not yet is up to debate but still precedent is set. Not that Jesus would be transfigured again but certainly God can make those with him appear to those here. He did it once he could do it again.

Elijah was miraculously taken up into heaven, or assumed into heaven.
That doesn't mean anyone else, other than Enoch was

God already did it twice and God promises to do it again for those who have not yet died when he comes back. So your premise is wrong. We know the precedent was set and if God wanted to do it again it wouldn't be novel for him to do so.

We don't know the details of it. We don't know the science, exactly what happened. We simply know God took him.

Yes you are right. And so it is said of Mary as well.

Paul plainly tells us that nothing that defiles can enter into heaven. We have a corruptible body. It cannot enter heaven.

The scriptures says sin cannot be in heaven. You are still speculating about Elijah or Enoch's bodies. Certainly they could have been given glorified bodies and we can speculate how this occured. But you are speaking more than the scriptures say. All it says is that they were taken bodily up to God. Beyond this is speculation. And thus what you choose to believe which is God killed their bodies and gave them new ones is a tradition you have just created because scriptures just don't say.

There is as much precedent set here as there is for an axe head to float (2Kings 6:5-7).

Yes pecedent was set here it happened once it could happen again.

There is as much precedent set here as there is for a man to kill 600 men with an ox goad (Judges 3:31)

Yes precedent is set here as well. It happened once it could happen again.

There is as much precedent set here as there is for a woman's jar of meal never running out and her jar of oil never emptying (1Kings 17:16)

Yes it was. and we see how 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish could feed thousands.

There is as much precedent set here as there is for the Lord to appear to you if you just ride on a horse

Yes it happened to Paul and it could happen again.

It was a historical event,

Yes it was

never again to be repeated

as we've seen many of your examples happened more than once. You are only speculating it won't happen again. Miracles happen every day and certainly these that have already occur set the precedent that it happend at least once meaning it could happen again if God wills it. But again you believe it won't happened not because scriptures say it won't but because that is what you believe. Which is a tradition you just created for your belief system.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Did it not set a precedent for you. Or are you now simply making excuses for those things you cannot do.

I laugh to think what you would say if I walked on water. However, I believe if God willed it I would as when he willed it when he set the precedent for it. However, is there any need for God to do so? I rather doubt it. And I have no need to put God to the test as that would be a sin!

 

[DHK]

I laugh to think what you would say if I walked on water. However, I believe if God willed it I would as when he willed it when he set the precedent for it. However, is there any need for God to do so? I rather doubt it. And I have no need to put God to the test as that would be a sin!

Your foolish answers in your previous two posts do not prove that God set any precedents for you to do any of those things or to believe that Mary was assumed into heaven or to practice idolatry in praying to her. All wrong.

It is just as foolish to believe that God is telling you to go to witches to commune with your ancestors. After all Samuel, through the medium of a with appeared to Saul. There is your precedent. You are very foolish in all of this.

History is history. All of history is not precedent setting. God acts with individuals in different ways. That doesn't mean he will do it again. It doesn't mean that he will ever talk to another person through a burning bush as he did with Moses. It is history. God is a God of the miraculous. We all know that. That doesn't mean we can blindly attribute certain miracles, like the assumption of Mary when there is no evidence that she was ever assumed.
There is as much evidence of that as there is of Islamic martyrs being in paradise and waited on by beautiful virgins. None.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your foolish answers in your previous two posts do not prove that God set any precedents for you to do any of those things or to believe that Mary was assumed into heaven or to practice idolatry in praying to her. All wrong.

As I haven't called your answers foolish it seems to me that you are not interested in proper discussion rather you just want to assert. Which means though I have shown that a precendent was set and I explained what that meant. We will, in the end, just have to agree to disagree.

 

[DHK]

As I haven't called your answers foolish it seems to me that you are not interested in proper discussion rather you just want to assert. Which means though I have shown that a precendent was set and I explained what that meant. We will, in the end, just have to agree to disagree.

What gives you the right to assert that history and precedent mean the same thing. I am not being condescending here. But it is foolish to equate these two terms. History is not precedent or precedent setting. Miracles happened for a purpose. I explained to you from Scripture what happened and why in the Transfiguration:
"This is my beloved Son; hear ye him."
It has nothing to do with Mary, or any other person.
It has nothing to do with the assumption.
It has to do with the deity of Christ.
Christ is central in this entire scene. We are to hear him. He is the Son of God, even as the Father in an audible voice testified at that time. That was the whole point of that experience.

 

[Yeshua1]

What gives you the right to assert that history and precedent mean the same thing. I am not being condescending here. But it is foolish to equate these two terms. History is not precedent or precedent setting. Miracles happened for a purpose. I explained to you from Scripture what happened and why in the Transfiguration:
"This is my beloved Son; hear ye him."
It has nothing to do with Mary, or any other person.
It has nothing to do with the assumption.
It has to do with the deity of Christ.
Christ is central in this entire scene. We are to hear him. He is the Son of God, even as the Father in an audible voice testified at that time. That was the whole point of that experience.

Again, the RCC takes the things of jesus Christ and applies them towards mary, Takes things of the Apostles and applies towards their priests!

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Okay, I'm not a Roman Catholic, but I need to chime in here...



Baptism and Holy Communion are visible expressions of reliance upon/faith IN CHRIST. They are not meritorious works of the Law by which we try to earn our salvation; rather they are the tangible means of receiving CHRIST by grace through faith, and thus personally appropriating the saving power of His Atonement and Resurrected Life. NOWHERE in the Bible does Christ or His Apostles pit faith against baptism/communion. NEITHER does one find such an alleged conflict in the first several centuries of the Church.

In the Bible, Faith is not just an intellectual exercise or an intellectual assent (see Heb 11 and James 2, for example). Faith involves trust or reliance upon which is visibly expressed in action. To use an illustration, when I am actually having faith in a bridge, it is not enough to intellectually believe the bridge will support me; I must actually GET ON THE BRIDGE in order to put my faith in it. Likewise, Faith in CHRIST (who is our only Bridge to God) is not merely believing intellectually that Christ died to give us Life--after all, the demons believe, and tremble (James 2:19)--but it is actually being UNITED TO HIM so we can have that LIFE, because that LIFE is IN THE SON. (1 John 5:11-12).

And what do the Scriptures say about Baptism? IN BAPTISM, we are buried and risen with Christ through faith* (Col 2:12) and are united together with Him (Rom 6:3-5) and have put on Christ (Gal 3:27). [*So far from pitting faith against baptism, Paul brings them very closely together]

And what about Holy Communion? In Communion we partake of the Body and Blood of Christ when we partake of the bread and the cup of wine (1 Cor 1:16), Body and Blood that is food and drink indeed which is given for the life of the world (the giving of which took place once for all on the CROSS), and by the partaking of which we abide in Him and He in us and thus by which we live because of Him (John 6:51-57).

So, at least in the this instance, the bolded statement above from the RCC Catechism more acurately reflects the Scriptural and patristic teaching about Baptism and Communion, than does the (Zwinglian) idea among many in modern day evangelicalism that these are just bare signs or visual aids that are disconnected from the realities they signify.


Actually, it's Romans 3 you're quoting, but at any rate...


True this is the function of the LAW and the truth about the Law, but sacraments are not 'Law'--they're ordained means of union with CHRIST, ordained by CHRIST HIMSELF. Sacraments are visible acts of FAITH.



Notice it states redemption is "IN CHRIST". In order to benefit from His work of redemption, we must be united to Him by faith. The sacraments of Baptism and Holy communion, according to SCRIPTURE, are specific expressions or acts of such faith/reliance upon Christ, and, since we are united to CHRIST and His Atonement thereby, they are therefore means of grace. We are buried with Christ by baptism into His DEATH, and are risen with Him in baptism as well (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12). We partake of His body and blood which He gave for us on the Cross when we partake of the bread and wine in Holy Communion (1 Cor 10:16) and thus we abide in Him and He in us (John 6:56).

See the part I put in bold:

And yet your Anglican Communion is diverse enough to hold and accept both views.

 

[Walter]

See the part I put in bold:

And yet your Anglican Communion is diverse enough to hold and accept both views.

I haven't heard this before. The 39 Articles of Religion do not seem to give room for both views and I have yet to read of or talk to an Anglican who holds to a symbolic view of baptism or communion. U.S. But then, a reading of some of the 'Articles of Religion' would seem to be contrary to Anglo-Catholicism. On what do you base this?