Because he was banned.
-
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!
Catholics, and the Eucharist.
- Thread starter Joshua Patrick
- Start date
Because he was banned.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
"Another one bites the dust..."
I'm surprised that it took as long as it did.
Signing up under false pretenses merits immediate banning.
yeah...me too...those mean 'ol deceptive Catholics...signing up as "Christian"...they're not Christian enough to post over here in the Other Christian Denominations...
-
yeah...me too...those mean 'ol deceptive Catholics...signing up as "Christian"...they're not Christian enough to post over here in the Other Christian Denominations...
-
No, I get it.
If the board owners don't want Catholics on the board that is their right.
I just find it to be a bit lacking in civility (spelling?) to keep Catholics off the board but then to allow a steady stream of threads which are so rudely critical of Catholic beliefs.
It seems that common decency would be to allow Catholics onto the board to answer those threads.
But hey - it's not my board.
quantumfaith
Active Member
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Why? Should we allow Jehovah's Witnesses on to give their side? How about someone who is an Athiest? Should they have their voice too? This is a Baptist Board - not an all religion board.
it's completely deceptive to play the semantics game when you know what the owners of this board are looking for when they ask for denomination and GIVE catholic as an example of what they mean. I think a better moniker would be Churchian as RC's follow the church over Christ.yeah...me too...those mean 'ol deceptive Catholics...signing up as "Christian"...they're not Christian enough to post over here in the Other Christian Denominations...
-
quantumfaith
Active Member
Everyone is, or should be aware, of the position of this board with regard to catholics, but it should be recognized, Catholic <> Non Christian.
(<> means not equal to)
I don't see many - if any threads about JW's or athiests.
No it is not an all religion board - however many denominations other than Baptist are participating here - hence the "All Christians" section.
I do admit to wondering why Catholics are not allowed but other non-Baptist denominations are.
But like I said - it's not my board - so I really can't get all that worked up about it.
I just find it to be funny when someone starts a thread demanding that Catholics defend some particular doctrine or practice when it is no secret that Catholics are not allowed on the board.
quantumfaith
Active Member
The short answer is YES. For one thing it helps those of us who consider ourselves to be "real christians" to honestly defend our faith, and do so with intellectual integrity. I might also add, if you spend anytime at all defending your faith with regard to an honest and genuine atheist you will be the better for it and greatly more prepared the next time to "give an account for the joy within you."
Then this would be called the Religious Beliefs Debate Board. But it's not. It's specifically made for Baptists. There is no reason to allow other faiths in if the owners have decided that this board was for Baptists and other denominations that have closely following beliefs.
See, in the essentials, most of the members here believe the same thing. Catholics do not. So they are different than most here.
quantumfaith
Active Member
And you completely bypassed or simply ignored my point. Does this mean that you see no purpose in sharpening your rhetorical skill and spiritual wisdom in order to defend your faith with respect to those who "differ" from you?
Last edited by a moderator:
Grace&Truth
New Member
Could you give your view (interpretation/Belief) of the Eucharist from an Othodox position and explain how it is different from the RC position? That would help greatly for all of us to understand this better.
He tried on page 13, but was soundly defeated in his exposition of John 6. For the "hard saying" he referred to was a saying that the people well understood, but were offended by it and therefore departed. They did not want to follow such sacrificial discipleship.
The bread referred to was not at all referring to Communion or the Eucharist, and the ECF that he quoted was not in reference to John 6 at all, but in reference to 1Cor.11, so that didn't help his cause either. From that point on it all went off topic. The point remains: one cannot get the Eucharist, the Real Presence, Communion, etc. From the passage that Agnus first brought up on page 13 in John 6.
Grace&Truth
New Member
Originally Posted by Grace&Truth
Could you give your view (interpretation/Belief) of the Eucharist from an Othodox position and explain how it is different from the RC position? That would help greatly for all of us to understand this better.
I would really like to know the difference between the Orthodox view and the RC view of the Eucharist. The Orthodox claim to be the original teaching (which I would not agree with) so I would like to see what Scriptures they use and how they intrepert them from an Orthodox position since they claim to be different from the RC interpretaion.
Could you give your view (interpretation/Belief) of the Eucharist from an Othodox position and explain how it is different from the RC position? That would help greatly for all of us to understand this better.
I would really like to know the difference between the Orthodox view and the RC view of the Eucharist. The Orthodox claim to be the original teaching (which I would not agree with) so I would like to see what Scriptures they use and how they intrepert them from an Orthodox position since they claim to be different from the RC interpretaion.
There is no Orthodox interpretation of St. John chapter 6 and a Roman Catholic interpretation of St. John 6…we both interpret St. John chapter 6 the same…the quotes I posted earlier from the 100 AD’s is how both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic view the Eucharist.
The difference between an Orthodox and a Roman Catholic and even some mainline Protestant Churches is terminology…we Orthodox don’t use terms to explain the Eucharist…Transubstantiation (substance, accidents), Consubstantiation…ect…the Orthodox do not accept the above notions…
Bishop Kallistos (Timothy) Ware has this to say in his book: The Orthodox Church:
As the words of the Epiclesis make abundantly plain, the Orthodox Church believes that after the consecration the bread and wine become in very truth the Body and Blood of Christ: they are not mere symbols, but the reality. But while Orthodoxy has always insisted on the REALITY of the change, it has never attempted to explain the MANNER of the change: the Eucharistic Prayer in the Liturgy simply uses the nuetral term metaballo, to 'turn about', to 'change', to 'alter'.
It is true that in the seventeenth century not only individual Orthodox writers, but Orthodox councils such as that of Jerusalem in 1672, made use of the Latin term 'transubstantiation' (in Greek, metousiosis), together with the Scholastic distinction between substance and accidents. But at the same time the Fathers of Jerusalem were careful to add that the use of these terms does not constitute an explanation of the manner of the change, since this is a mystery and must always remain incomprehensible.
Yet despite this disclaimer, many Orthodox felt that Jerusalem had committed itself too unreservedly to the terminology of Latin Scholasticism, and it is significant that when in 1838 the Russian Church issued a translation of the Acts of Jerusalem, while retaining the word transubstantiation, it carefully paraphrased the rest of the passage in such a way that the technical terms substance and accidents were not employed.
Today a few Orthodox writers still use the word transubstantiation, but they insist on two points: first, there are many other words which can with equal legitimacy be used to describe the consecration, and, among them all, the term transubstantiation enjoys no unique or decisive authority; secondly, its use does not commit theologians to the acceptance of Aristotelian philosophical concepts. (Timothy Ware, page 283-284)
It is true that in the seventeenth century not only individual Orthodox writers, but Orthodox councils such as that of Jerusalem in 1672, made use of the Latin term 'transubstantiation' (in Greek, metousiosis), together with the Scholastic distinction between substance and accidents. But at the same time the Fathers of Jerusalem were careful to add that the use of these terms does not constitute an explanation of the manner of the change, since this is a mystery and must always remain incomprehensible.
Yet despite this disclaimer, many Orthodox felt that Jerusalem had committed itself too unreservedly to the terminology of Latin Scholasticism, and it is significant that when in 1838 the Russian Church issued a translation of the Acts of Jerusalem, while retaining the word transubstantiation, it carefully paraphrased the rest of the passage in such a way that the technical terms substance and accidents were not employed.
Today a few Orthodox writers still use the word transubstantiation, but they insist on two points: first, there are many other words which can with equal legitimacy be used to describe the consecration, and, among them all, the term transubstantiation enjoys no unique or decisive authority; secondly, its use does not commit theologians to the acceptance of Aristotelian philosophical concepts. (Timothy Ware, page 283-284)
Keep in mind too, the Roman Catholic Church has been on her own since 1054, since then the Roman Catholic Church has developed her own Dogma that is foreign to the Eastern Orthodox Church…her Sacramental theology has changed, Mary's role has been developed more so, Purgatory…just to name a few…
Hope this helps
In XC
-
Grace&Truth
New Member
Agnus_Dei
I found this site. Would say this is true of your beliefs?
Organization and Religious Authority
The Orthodox Church is organized into several regional, autocephalous (governed by their own head bishops) churches. The Patriarch of Constantinople has the honor of primacy, but does not carry the same authority as the Pope does in Catholicism. Major Orthodox churches include the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Romanian Orthodox Church, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, the Church of Alexandria, the Church of Jerusalem, and the Orthodox Church in America.
The religious authority for Orthodox Christianity is not the Pope as in Catholicism, nor the individual Christian with his Bible as in Protestantism, but the scriptures as interpreted by the seven ecumenical councils of the church.
Orthodoxy also relies heavily on the writings of early Greek fathers such as Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great. Although some Orthodox confessions of faith were produced in the 17th century as counterparts to those of the Reformation, these are regarded as having only historical significance.
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/orthodoxy.htm
I found this site. Would say this is true of your beliefs?
Organization and Religious Authority
The Orthodox Church is organized into several regional, autocephalous (governed by their own head bishops) churches. The Patriarch of Constantinople has the honor of primacy, but does not carry the same authority as the Pope does in Catholicism. Major Orthodox churches include the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Romanian Orthodox Church, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, the Church of Alexandria, the Church of Jerusalem, and the Orthodox Church in America.
The religious authority for Orthodox Christianity is not the Pope as in Catholicism, nor the individual Christian with his Bible as in Protestantism, but the scriptures as interpreted by the seven ecumenical councils of the church.
Orthodoxy also relies heavily on the writings of early Greek fathers such as Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great. Although some Orthodox confessions of faith were produced in the 17th century as counterparts to those of the Reformation, these are regarded as having only historical significance.
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/orthodoxy.htm
Sure what you posted I would agree with…I’m gonna guess your hang-up will be the quote as follows:
...nor the individual Christian with his Bible as in Protestantism, but the scriptures as interpreted by the seven ecumenical councils of the church.
But, let me remind you that you too interpret Holy Scripture within the Baptist Tradition…be it through the commentaries of John R. Rice, Spurgeon or Scofield…you don’t interpret Holy Scripture on your own...no one does. Some Baptist even have their own Confessions of Faith...who do you think came up with such?...does every baptist live by their own confession of faith as they see fit or how they feel the Holy Spirit leads them?
I also have an Orthodox Study Bible and like your KJV study bible, it also has a commentary, but from the Apostolic fathers, Early Church fathers, Desert fathers or mothers to the more modern Theologians of the Church…
In XC
-
Grace&Truth
New Member
I would agree that yes I (can't speak for others, although I believe most would) do use study helps, commentaries etc. However, I would say the difference is that I study what the Scriptures say and if what I hear/read cannot be reconciled with any scripture concerning a certain subject or doctrine I will put that aside and believe what the scripture within the context of a passage considering all other scriptures concerning any given doctrine. I do not use a Study Bible because when I am reading scripture I want to just read scripture while praying asking the Holy Spirit to teach me. Also the more that I have done this the more He (the Holy Spirit) has taught me. Now when someone preaches or teaches or I read something a number of verses come to mind that either agrees with or helps me to discern that what I am hearing/reading is not right. I always try to remain teachable but I believe that the Scriptures are the final authority not any man's interpretation. God gave the inspired Scriptures and therein we have His Truth which gives us everything we need to understand who He is, why we are here, that we are sinners in need of Him, how we can be saved, how we are to live daily in Him, as well as what will happen in the future. So if we are to deal (or debate) any given doctrine we must use The very inspired Word of God to do so- 2 Tim 3:16. So with that being said can you prove from the Scriptures alone that the Bread & Wine are the literal Body and Blood of Jesus and can you then explain why it is necessary for anyone to have to partake of His literal Body & Blood?