Catholics, and the Eucharist.

[annsni]

Anne .... I would have to agree with Lori on this one. I was a Presbyterian & we always followed the Westminster confessions of Faith....even PC USA follows it. Are you now Reformed Baptists?

We were PC USA but this was one area that they disagreed and practiced it the way they did.

And yes, we are reformed Baptists.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

We were PC USA but this was one area that they disagreed and practiced it the way they did.

And yes, we are reformed Baptists.

Wow.....They should leave the denom then and become Baptists or Congregationalist's.

 

[annsni]

Wow.....They should leave the denom then and become Baptists or Congregationalist's.

Yeah, I'm not sure where they stand now. The pastor and associate pastor were great men and when we were there, there was the whole Reimagining conference and stuff. They fought hard for Biblical truth. But they left, we stayed a bit longer and then we left. The church was dying and the old folks wouldn't let us do CPR.

 

[Tom Butler]

Man, oh man, is my curiosity piqued by the banning of lori4dogs and Joshua Patrick.

Joshua lasted about 24 hours, and lori was around for a couple of years. The one thing they have in common is that both are Roman Catholics.

I know the moderators are not obligated to answer, but did being RC have anything to do with their banning? If yes, why was lori allowed to stay around for two years, when her profile clearly lists her as RC.

If no, I have to confess that my innate curiosity (called nosiness) has gotten the better of me.

 

[annsni]

Man, oh man, is my curiosity piqued by the banning of lori4dogs and Joshua Patrick.

Joshua lasted about 24 hours, and lori was around for a couple of years. The one thing they have in common is that both are Roman Catholics.

I know the moderators are not obligated to answer, but did being RC have anything to do with their banning? If yes, why was lori allowed to stay around for two years, when her profile clearly lists her as RC.

If no, I have to confess that my innate curiosity (called nosiness) has gotten the better of me.

My guess is that originally, there was not a ban on Catholics and since Lori was here so long, it's probably that she was grandfathered in. IMO, Joshua was deceptive in his application and came here to convert us all. That was against the rules. Of course I could be wrong (it's happened once or twice if I remember correctly - LOL).

 

[DHK]

Anne .... I would have to agree with Lori on this one. I was a Presbyterian & we always followed the Westminster confessions of Faith....even PC USA follows it. Are you now Reformed Baptists?

There is a difference between baptizing as a sacrament and baptizing as an ordinance. Lori used the word "sacrament" which infers saving grace. The old time Presbyterians which wrote many of our commentaries, such as Albert Barnes and Matthew Henry, were very evangelical in their writings. Writing on John 3:5, Barnes believes that "born of water and of the spirit" that the "water" refers to baptism (as does the Catholics). However he does not believe that it has any sacramental value, that is any salvic value. Here is what he says:

Verse 5. Be born of water. By water, here, is evidently signified baptism. Thus the word is used in Eph 5:26; Tit 3:5. Baptism was practised by the Jews in receiving a Gentile as a proselyte. It was practised by John among the Jews; and Jesus here says that it is an ordinance of his religion, and the sign and seal of the renewing influences of his Spirit. So he said (Mr 16:16), "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." It is clear from these places, and from the example of the apostles (Ac 2:38; 8:12; 13:1-52; 28:31,31; 9:18; 10:47; 28:31; 16:15; 28:31; 18:8; 22:16; Ga 3:27), that they considered this ordinance as binding on all who professed to love the Lord Jesus. And though it cannot be said that none who are not baptized can be saved, yet Jesus meant, undoubtedly, to be understood as affirming that this was to be the regular and uniform way of entering into his church; that it was the appropriate mode of making a profession of religion; and that a man who neglected this, when the duty was made known to him, neglected a plain command of God. It is clear, also, that any other command of God might as well be neglected or violated as this, and that it is the duty of everyone not only to love the Saviour, but to make an acknowledgment of that love by being baptized, and by devoting himself thus to his service. But, lest Nicodemus should suppose that this was all that was meant, he added that it was necessary that he should be born of the Spirit also. This was predicted of the Saviour, that he should baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire, Mt 3:11. By this is clearly intended that the heart must be changed by the agency of the Holy Spirit; that the love of sin must be abandoned; that man must repent of crime and turn to God; that he must renounce all his evil propensities, and give himself to a life of prayer and holiness, of meekness, purity, and benevolence. This great change is in the Scripture ascribed uniformly to the Holy Spirit, Tit 3:5; 1Th 1:6 Ro 5:5 1Pe 1:22.

These Presbyterians were evangelical and did not believe in baptismal regeneration as the Catholics do. They still believed in salvation by grace through faith. Baptism was purely symbolic, as it is with Baptists. Their reason for baptizing was different.

 

[annsni]

There is a difference between baptizing as a sacrament and baptizing as an ordinance. Lori used the word "sacrament" which infers saving grace. The old time Presbyterians which wrote many of our commentaries, such as Albert Barnes and Matthew Henry, were very evangelical in their writings. Writing on John 3:5, Barnes believes that "born of water and of the spirit" that the "water" refers to baptism (as does the Catholics). However he does not believe that it has any sacramental value, that is any salvic value. Here is what he says:

These Presbyterians were evangelical and did not believe in baptismal regeneration as the Catholics do. They still believed in salvation by grace through faith. Baptism was purely symbolic, as it is with Baptists. Their reason for baptizing was different.

I've found that there are different definitions to "sacrament". Catholics use it as something necessary for salvation and I've seen it used just the same as we see "ordinance" by some other believers.

 

[DHK]

My guess is that originally, there was not a ban on Catholics and since Lori was here so long, it's probably that she was grandfathered in. IMO, Joshua was deceptive in his application and came here to convert us all. That was against the rules. Of course I could be wrong (it's happened once or twice if I remember correctly - LOL).

All quite true, especially that which I bolded.
As for Lori, I am not quite sure. Perhaps the administration has started to be a bit more consistent in its application of the rules concerning Catholics.

 

[DHK]

I've found that there are different definitions to "sacrament". Catholics use it as something necessary for salvation and I've seen it used just the same as we see "ordinance" by some other believers.

It might be where you come from or how you have been taught.
I have never heard the word "sacrament" used in a Baptist Church.
I have never heard the word "ordinance" used in a Catholic Church (where I was raised.) But that is my experience.

 

[billwald]

>The Bible is not a product of the RCC. That myth is as far from the truth as one can get.

Half as far. The Bible was a product of the Orthodox Catholic Church before the Bishop of Rome pulled out.

 

[DHK]

>The Bible is not a product of the RCC. That myth is as far from the truth as one can get.

Half as far. The Bible was a product of the Orthodox Catholic Church before the Bishop of Rome pulled out.

Not even close.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Lots of people seem to be dodging the question. "Why don't Baptist believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.?"

First of All baptist don't make a connection between communion and the OT thanks offering thus we don't call it Eucharist. Next who says the real pressence of Christ isn't in communion? Baptist believe that where 2 or more are Gathered Jesus Christ is there with them. Thus we believe the real presence is in communion but not a distribution of a special grace rather the real presence is there due to the gathering of believers.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Hello friend! :wavey:

For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Bible as we know it today.

Christians had the Old Testament Septuagint, and literally hundreds of other books from which to choose. The Catholic Church realized early on that she had to decide which of these books were inspired and which ones weren't.

Several Church Councils or Synods, were convened to deal with the matter, notably, Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 and 419.

He debates sometimes became bitter on both sides. One of the most famous was between St. Jerome, who felt the seven books were not canonical, and St. Augustine who said they were.

There are always three sides to every story, this side, that side, and the side of truth. Whether Jerome's position, or Augustine's position was the correct position, had to be settled by a third party, and that third party was the Catholic Church.

The Pope stepped in to settle the matter. In concurrence with the opinion of St. Augustine, and being prompted by the Holy Spirit, Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, "The Decree of Damasus", in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books.

Rome had spoken, the issue was settled.


St. Jerome acquiesced under obedience (Hebrews 13:17) and began the translation, and completed it in 404 A.D.. In 405, his new Latin Vulgate* was published for the first time.

A full explanation of the history of the bible, and how it was compiled is here;

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080928064041AATOZUD

If you have another idea, how the bible was compiled, please feel free.

Ah not so straight forward as that. couple of questions 1) When was the last book of the NT written? 2) Did the churches copy them and distribute them?
If we say the last book of the bible was written between 70 AD and 90 AD then we can assume by the second century most all churches had in their collection a complete NT. The fact is that they had other writings as well. But scriptures were clearly with in all the churches long before the Councils of Laodicea, Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. We can note that the 39th festial letter by Athenasius; he provides a full listing of the 27 books of the New Testiment.

I am afraid that ...some guileless persons may be led astray from their purity and holiness by the craftiness of certain men and begin thereafter to pay attention to other books, the so-called apocryphal writings, being deceived by their possession of the same names as the genuine books

Leads one to see that there were already well established books which were differenciated from false teaching books well read in all the Churches. It seems there was an unwritten consensus of acceptable books. And what was this unwritten consensus? Athenasius spells it out

Continuing, I must without hesitation mention the scriptures of the New Testament; they are the following: the four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, after them the Acts of the Apostles and the seven so-called catholic epistles of the apostles -- namely, one of James, two of Peter, then three of John and after these one of Jude. In addition there are fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul written in the following order: the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians and then after these the one to the Galatians, following it the one to the Ephesians, thereafter the one to the Philippians and the one to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians and the epistle to the Hebrews and then immediately two to Timothy , one to Titus and lastly the one to Philemon. Yet further the Revelation of John

The problem came with the dabbling of other books outside this list of accepted books. Churches long after already having a complete grouping of Books of scripture felt they had to write it down and say "thus far and no further" Establishing in writing a canon which had already been accepted.

 

[Matt Black]

Lots of people seem to be dodging the question. "Why don't Baptist believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.?"

For me, as an Anglican (so not a Baptist!) it depends what you mean by 'the Real Presence'. Certainly I accept that Christ is Really Present in the Eucharist, since for me that concept is there in the NT and the ECFs from the get-go, but I don't understand that to mean that the elements physically become His Body and Blood, since (a) that concept was unknown to both Scripture and the Early Church (and arguably within the Catholic Church until Lateran IV in 1215) and (b) it's patently incorrect as any scientific analysis of the consecrated elements will demonstrate.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

For me, as an Anglican (so not a Baptist!) it depends what you mean by 'the Real Presence'. Certainly I accept that Christ is Really Present in the Eucharist, since for me that concept is there in the NT and the ECFs from the get-go, but I don't understand that to mean that the elements physically become His Body and Blood, since (a) that concept was unknown to both Scripture and the Early Church (and arguably within the Catholic Church until Lateran IV in 1215) and (b) it's patently incorrect as any scientific analysis of the consecrated elements will demonstrate.

I find your answer interesting. How do you then view Justin Martyrs 1st Apology with regard to this statement? What is he really saying then?

 

[Matt Black]

Do you mean this:

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

?

If so, I would regard the transformation as spiritual rather than physical. I find it noteworthy that the Orthodoxen (Zenas will correct me here if wrong, I trust!) describe it as a mystery and regard the Catholic physical transubstantiation doctrine as being a theological over-development of the RP concept.

 

[jaigner]

Next who says the real pressence of Christ isn't in communion? Baptist believe that where 2 or more are Gathered Jesus Christ is there with them. Thus we believe the real presence is in communion but not a distribution of a special grace rather the real presence is there due to the gathering of believers.

Actually, Baptists wouldn't ever admit to the real presence of Christ. It's only a remembrance. Secondly, Catholics believe that it is more than a spiritual presence or special grace.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Actually, Baptists wouldn't ever admit to the real presence of Christ. It's only a remembrance. Secondly, Catholics believe that it is more than a spiritual presence or special grace.

Thats not true. I'm baptist and my church believes that where 3 or more are gathered Jesus is in our midst. That is the real presence. And I know what the catholics believe. They believe the substance or the spiritual essense is the actual body and blood of Christ and that they are taking in the divine person of Jesus into themselves every time they partake of the Eucharist. And that it provides them the transformative grace to keep them and continue them in their walk of Faith becoming like Jesus Christ. They believe it to be an intamate encounter. No baptist don't believe that. But we do believe Jesus Presence is already in every believer through the Holy Spirit.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Do you mean this:

?[/FONT][/COLOR]

If so, I would regard the transformation as spiritual rather than physical. I find it noteworthy that the Orthodoxen (Zenas will correct me here if wrong, I trust!) describe it as a mystery and regard the Catholic physical transubstantiation doctrine as being a theological over-development of the RP concept.

Remember Catholics Use the science of philosophy (meanings of terms) to describe their doctrine. Thus Substance is in view of Platonic teaching with regard to reality beyond the material thus (what we call spiritual) Trans-substance is a spiritual change. Accedents is the matter which is the physical properties of the "Host". These (in their belief) do not change. But the spiritual truth behind it or the substance is that it has changed.

Note the terms would go like this what is the substance of the chair? What give a chair its chairness just the physical properties of it or is there a truth beyond what can be observed also giving it its chairness. Ie Substance. This is how the Eucharist is viewed. And from this perspective I don't see how the Catholics and the orthodox really differ. In some respect both must regard it a mystery and a spiritual truth.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I personally hold to a view that is probably somewhere in between the Real Presence and strictly memorialist.

While I do think that John 6 should not be interpreted literally, I am sympathetic to those who have more literal interpretations like many other protestant groups (Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Reformed). But I think an honest reading of John 6 suggests that something spiritually profound occurs in communion/eucharist that the memorialist view does an injustice to.

Of course, my view is that transubstantiation is an excessive theological exercise to rationally describe a completely irrational mystery. I am sympathetic to Catholics in this regard because the same can be said of almost any highly developed theology held by any denomination.

It is also sad that this thread was derailed the way it was and resulted in the bannings that occurred. Hopefully it can get back on track.