Once in a while we Baptists sing a song called, "Nothing but the Blood of Jesus."
I don't think they do that in the RCC.
-
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!
Eucharistic Divinity
- Thread starter Cathode
- Start date
Once in a while we Baptists sing a song called, "Nothing but the Blood of Jesus."
I don't think they do that in the RCC.
It’s amazing how your interpretation of Scripture is in perfect alinement with your opinions.
You recognized that, right. We Baptists have some good opinions we match from Scripture.
We like to study to show ourselves approved unto God, you know, that stuff Paul talks about.
No, we don’t think just believing in your head, and sitting there like a sack of potatoes is salvific. No, we think that’s a crap idea, and unscriptural.
That's why I'm a Protestant. I'm of the sort that believes salvation is all of the Lord's work.
Or you are simply reading your own opinions into scripture like every other Bible aloner who reads his different opinions into scripture.
It’s amazing how each Bible aloner renders his own opinion from the same scripture.
The RCC would have faired well under the Law of Moses with all those works.
It's a shame they haven't realized all those works were fulfilled by Christ.
He is the All in All, the only thing we can have our faith in, unless we want those works to cancel out the grace He provided.
When you add those works to faith for salvation you are saying the finished work of Christ is not enough.
That's when those works cancel out the Grace He worked so hard for us to have.
Faith without Love cancels out salvation. Both are by Grace.
He who hears Jesus words and puts them into action.
You can’t just believe Jesus and sit like a sack of potatoes.
Faith must extend to working through love, not just believing in your head.
No, you're to indoctrinated to understand.
We don't perform the works we do to get saved or to stay saved, all the works were taken care of by Christ to provide Grace, something we don't deserve but He gave it to us anyway through the simple act of believing Him.
We work because He gave us the Grace and freedom from the works.
What did Paul say? "for you are saved by grace through faith, not of works lest any man should boast."
I can't boast because the only thing that saved me was the grace He provided for through faith.
Now what about you? Do you have something to boast about that you added to your faith.
Let's see, maybe depending on a man to perform a ceremony on your behalf in water baptism to be saved.
There you go, you made a decision that saved you, good going there, Cathode.
It's a matter of salvation, Cathode, I can't pull any punches.
I hope you take this in that context, what I'm about to say.
If you had been reading and studying your Bible as we Baptists do, I wouldn't have to point this out to you, you would already know it.
I was going to marry a Jewish gal years ago when I was in college but the condition was to convert to Judaism… so I took instructions from a local Rabbi and I learned things. 1. They are required to do about 630 good works ( mitzvah’s), not so much to do them as an exercise but to help God bring about paradise on this earth. That should be the activity burned into the DNA of every Jew. So let’s not compare hthat with the RCC or any Goyem for that matter. It’s a very noble goal but really ignored by many Jews who just go through rituals to identify as Jews.
They also don’t accept Jesus as messiah so Catholics of all stripes recognize Christ as Lord & Savior.
My mother always said, “You go to your church and I will go to mine”… I seriously don’t think that by arguing doctrines will change anyones mind.
I agree no one will change their minds.
But let me share a Biblical fact with you. No Jew was ever saved by the works they did. They were all saved who were saved the same as Abraham and the same as us today, they were justified by Grace through faith.
The works that they did were expected because Christ had not yet come to fulfill those works. They were justified by faith in in what the coming Messiah would do, we are justified by faith in looking back at what the Messiah did.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
First of all, @Earth Wind and Fire, I want you to read this and tell me how the above is open minded.
Now, @Cathode, let me explain what I meant if you will indulge the length. Earlier, you posted something that I had read a long time ago but couldn't remember the reference - that being that under recent Catholic teaching Baptists and like faith evangelicals were not really "accursed" but brethren who had strayed. They even accept our baptism as valid for salvation. But what I remember also reading was that this applied to those Baptists acting in ignorance, not to anyone who after complete study and with full knowledge, stays with their Baptist faith. This especially applies to Baptist theologians and clergymen, with the tolerance being mainly for "ignorant" Baptist laymen.
What I was saying, which you find so outrageous and unacceptable, is me applying exactly the same scenario to you folks. There are, I believe, many practicing Catholic laymen, who have a deep and true personal devotion to Christ, but because of how they were raised in the only system of worship they know, practice methods of worship I find to be grave error. I see no reason they should be condemned, out of hand, for such error, any more than Luther or Calvin ever condemned all practicing Catholics to Hell - even though, as you said, the practice of worshipping a piece of bread is in reality, damnable heresy.
I hope that explains what I mean. The Pope, the priests, and Catholic theologians are in far more danger than a lay person raised in the Catholic church, or even a curious evangelical who found themselves in a shallow, man centered Protestant church, and decided to try something different.
Last edited:
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, but once again, I don't find the extreme idolatrous position here that Roman Catholicism later developed. What I find is a somewhat brilliant showing of how the Lord's Supper illustrates the unity with Christ which is an essential of our salvation. This especially is true if your congregation was largely non-Jewish, with no background of understanding of the sacrificial system and if they had little or no access to accurate translations of scripture or ability to read it if they did.
The key is "they who by faith partake of it". Not, the actual eating of it, which act in itself, can avail to nothing. The error in Catholicism is two fold. One, the wine and bread are not physically converted to anything. But, in my opinion, believing that is not the worst error, because you could still have a proper view of what is being shown by the Supper. But you, and other Roman Catholics, insist and keep insisting upon actual worship of the piece of bread as it is held aloft in a jeweled setting and adored - and I'm here to tell you that your priest has no right to lead in such worship, even if the presence of Christ was physically in the piece of bread. Jesus is God and wants to be worshipped as Christ, in spirit and in truth, not as a piece of bread on a pole.
Again, here is a disciple of John, who (according to the NT) was taught 'at the apostles feet' who you say 'got it all wrong' and believed ' damnable heresy'. That is, unless you try to spin his words somehow to mean that he really only meant the Eucharist was 'like' His flesh. And, of course, St. Paul asks point blank in Corinthians whether 'the cup we bless and the bread we break, is it not His body and blood?'. You really have to spin that hard to make it mean it is all still only a symbol.
'They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
I don't know how it could be much clearer and to accept a purely symbolic position is to accept a doctrine invented really late in Christian history. I have to leave it at that.
'They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
I don't know how it could be much clearer and to accept a purely symbolic position is to accept a doctrine invented really late in Christian history. I have to leave it at that.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Once again. I didn't say "he got it all wrong". I'm saying that you Roman Catholics have corrupted the meaning, and turned it in to an idolatrous practice, and then try to use the ECF's as a basis. The fact is, no one has put up any post showing the parading of the host, in a setting, around on a pole as an object of worship. That you must in a sense view the wine and bread as the body and blood of Jesus is of course necessary - otherwise you can't do the ceremony. But the way you guys insist upon actual worship of the host itself is wrong, and would be wrong even if somehow Jesus was in the piece of bread. And this is very important: Even if Jesus was the actual host, how dare you priests think you can conjure him into the piece of bread and then parade him around at your command on a pole, while demanding that people worship the object you have brought forth. So let's keep in mind what is really going on here.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Well it would be a lot clearer if you would put up the complete quote and reference what was being refuted. It was a refutation of gnostics, not Baptist theology. The gnostics, among many errors, would have had a problem with the whole idea of Jesus Christ being God and at the same time man (flesh). Reread the above in that light and it makes more sense.
The fact is, you guys have no evidence from the early church fathers that the parade and pageantry we see is what they did. Worse, there is no evidence in scripture of this, nor is there any evidence of a functioning Catholic style priesthood.