Orthodox Christians

[Thinkingstuff]

Please don't tell me what I "think" because that is simply not true. I perfectly understand the Catholic and Orthodox explanation of sacraments and their relationship to justifying grace and regeneration.

IF this were true then we would have better conversations about it rather than me listening to accusations.

However, their explanation is simply not Biblical.Regeneration does not occur IN baptism neither does justifying grace occur WITH baptism. Neither occur in connection with baptism (Rom. 4:11).

Again you take Romans 4 out of Context. Romans 4 is about faith not about repudiating sacramentalism. As any exegetical review will surely point out. You mistakenly provide an example which Paul gives in regard to forgiveness for sin as his main point when his main point was to show the primacy of faith over the works of the law. It is interesting to note that you always start Romans at chapter 4 rather than taking in the context from the begining as if Paul didn't connect his thinking with the rest of his book. And in fact. Your assertion that

Please don't tell me what I "think" because that is simply not true.

Is shown to be false in how you attempt to use Romans 4 to "repudiate" "sacramentalism".

Neither occur in connection with baptism (Rom. 4:11)

Your basic argument relies on the fact that you think "sacramentalism" is magically based because circumcision in of itself is not effications towards salvation. Which is why you keep pointing out Romans 4. So yes based on your statements I can certainly suggest what you think in regards to what you believe Catholics think in regards to the sacraments. Look for instance as your "premier verse to support your view

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Where you hold that we believe the action of itself like circumcision for the Jewish Christians saves without faith. And by attempting to use this verse in this way you 1) make a false claim of "sacramental repudiation" as if that was Pauls thought regarding a developed Catholic Doctrine that wasn't yet defined in the Christian Church and 2) Ignoring the fact that the context of the passage Follows from an argument Paul makes in the preceeding chapter

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.

which once again the chapter 4 begins with the continuing argument followed from previous chapters

For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God

certainly referrencing what he spoke about from the second chapter of Romans

But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God

It becomes obvious Paul is moving Jewish christians away from the idea that circumcision of its own saves rather than repudiating "sacramentalism" which is the outward sign of an inward Grace. Romans 4 contextually is speaking of the primacy of faith in our justification. Ie... Without faith you can't be justified.

For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” ... And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

No it is not! We do not believe that prayer or reading the Bible communicates justifying/regenerating grace.

Not in those terms as you believe Justification is forensic (which does not coincide with scripture btw). Which is why everything comes back to the forensic idea of salvation with your. Ie you must say it doesn't affect "salvation". Which you use in this sense forensicly, which you say you don't believe that about salvation because even you note that salvation incorporates more than just one aspect. When its clear scriptures give us a view of salvation which is more than a forensic understanding. However saying that I can certainly say you believe that a grace is given with those activity in which you participate "drawing you closer" to Jesus Christ transforming a christian more into his likeness. Note you also believe if you don't practice active scripture reading and having a prayer life that your "spiritual growth" is stunted. So in essence we hold God dispensing grace through specified activities just because you don't use the same terminology because it doesn't coincide with your Forensic view of "Salvation". Doesn't mean we don't hold the same consept. Thus your only retort for not having the similiar view with our interaction with God is "But that doesn't affect our salvation". Which of course you mean forensicly.

This is precisely what Paul repudiates in Romans 4:5-11. The outward sign has no ORGANIC connection with either regeneration or justification. It has not SPIRITUAL connection either. It has only a SYMBOLIC connection

So, said you are attempting to make me believe God only interacts with you symbolically and not in actuality? I don't believe any baptist holds this view. I guess when baptist want a healing from God they just want it to be done symbolically and not in actuality? I don't think you want to believe that.

Yes, but not a model for our salvation as no human being can possibly live out that model either by his own power or the power of the Holy Spirit working in and through him - impossible as that requires sinlessness.

Oh, so the thrust of your faith is that no one should make an attempt to live out the life of Christ because its impossible thus by implication. We should be comfortable in sin? But is this whatJesus when he says to us

You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

or Paul when he says in Romans 6

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

and

Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Of course not. And we also see in this verse the contextual unity of Romans starting in the 1st chapter through the rest of his book which unfortunately you want to cut apart as if there isn't a unifying thread in his discourse? Who writes in a manner of no cohesion? Certainly not Paul.

No amount of IMPARTATION by the Holy Spirit short of complete and instant glorification of our life can satisfy God's righteous standard for justification and that simply does not occur until the resurrection. No INCOMPLETED righteousness satisfies God's standard of righteousness for justification. Your soterilogy is simply impossible as well as a complete and total rejection of Christ's atonement.

The fact that you seperate the life of Christ from his work on Calvary makes this statement understandable however its not scriptural. Christ's complete work from his incarnation to his resurrection is part of the atonement.

No you do not!

I certainly do believe it

What little of the life of Christ we share is NEVER sufficient to justify

I find it funny that you say this with Paul's writings in the book of Romans where he says

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

That by his death and resurrection and our being united to him in it certainly justifies us even with your forensic view of Justification.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, this is my response to the fact that by the time I get to reply to your response, enough posts will have happened here that I might as well not bother. It makes me sad because I really wish I could be more productive here, but I have been involved in a campaign as well as working full time and have four pages to catch up on here.

I know what you mean by the time I responded to one of Biblicist post he has posted so much more stuff that I don't have the time shifting through all of it to answer all of it. However, I secretely think this is his stratagy to say we never answer him. He knows with enough volume we will just make our points for brevity rather than spending the time shifting through all his postings to respond to each thing. Though admittedly, I could be wrong about this.

In fact I was reading some of his pasts post so I can accurately quote him and came across a post where he said I won't dare answer something when in fact I never read it because so many things were posted subsequent to it and never read the challenge. Thus I didn't answer his challenge not knowing it was made. I might respond to his dare but it seems to me by the time I'm finish there will be many more such challenges all of which is time consuming to read much less respond to to shift through it. So I find it sufficient just to make my points as I come across some of his points. And answer those things which I had the time to read or which is most current in the discussion.

However, his motus may be that he will only respond to this post and not the post I placed immediately before it.

 

[The Biblicist]

Again you take Romans 4 out of Context. Romans 4 is about faith not about repudiating sacramentalism. As any exegetical review will surely point out.

It is very frustrating trying to continue any rational or reasonable discussion with you for one reason. You completely ignore all the evidences I have placed before you that proves you are simply wrong at this very point. Instead, you simply repeat your mantra as though no response had been given to these assertions. It is worse than talking to myself because when I talk to myself I do provide the right responses.

So again, the pirmary subject is not faith but justification.

1. It is introduced at the beginning as the primary topic - Rom. 3:24
2. It is introduced again at the beginning of chapter four - Rom. 4:1
3. It is the conclusion - Rom. 4:25-5:1

Second, it has nothing to do with the "primacy" of faith over works but rather the complete exclusion of works by faith (Rom. 3:27-28; 4:5-6; 21).

Third, justification is empty and worthless unless righteousness and remission of sins are inherent in its very meaning - Rom. 4:6-8.

Bottom line, you have absolutely no exegetical basis whatsoever for your assertions as every assertion is repudiated by sound exegetical examination of this text.

 

[The Biblicist]

I know what you mean by the time I responded to one of Biblicist post he has posted so much more stuff that I don't have the time shifting through all of it to answer all of it. However, I secretely think this is his stratagy to say we never answer him. He knows with enough volume we will just make our points for brevity rather than spending the time shifting through all his postings to respond to each thing. Though admittedly, I could be wrong about this.

Yes, you are wrong about this. I have no idea about your schedule or typing speed. I have no such motive.

However, while we are discussing frustrations, let me share one I have with your posts. You cover too much territory and therefore it is really impossible to get anywhere as we are spread out everywhere.

 

[The Biblicist]

IF this were true then we would have better conversations about it rather than me listening to accusations.

Again you take Romans 4 out of Context. Romans 4 is about faith not about repudiating sacramentalism. As any exegetical review will surely point out. You mistakenly provide an example which Paul gives in regard to forgiveness for sin as his main point when his main point was to show the primacy of faith over the works of the law. It is interesting to note that you always start Romans at chapter 4 rather than taking in the context from the begining as if Paul didn't connect his thinking with the rest of his book. And in fact. Your assertion that Is shown to be false in how you attempt to use Romans 4 to "repudiate" "sacramentalism". Your basic argument relies on the fact that you think "sacramentalism" is magically based because circumcision in of itself is not effications towards salvation. Which is why you keep pointing out Romans 4. So yes based on your statements I can certainly suggest what you think in regards to what you believe Catholics think in regards to the sacraments. Look for instance as your "premier verse to support your view Where you hold that we believe the action of itself like circumcision for the Jewish Christians saves without faith. And by attempting to use this verse in this way you 1) make a false claim of "sacramental repudiation" as if that was Pauls thought regarding a developed Catholic Doctrine that wasn't yet defined in the Christian Church and 2) Ignoring the fact that the context of the passage Follows from an argument Paul makes in the preceeding chapter which once again the chapter 4 begins with the continuing argument followed from previous chapters certainly referrencing what he spoke about from the second chapter of Romans It becomes obvious Paul is moving Jewish christians away from the idea that circumcision of its own saves rather than repudiating "sacramentalism" which is the outward sign of an inward Grace. Romans 4 contextually is speaking of the primacy of faith in our justification. Ie... Without faith you can't be justified.

Not in those terms as you believe Justification is forensic (which does not coincide with scripture btw). Which is why everything comes back to the forensic idea of salvation with your. Ie you must say it doesn't affect "salvation". Which you use in this sense forensicly, which you say you don't believe that about salvation because even you note that salvation incorporates more than just one aspect. When its clear scriptures give us a view of salvation which is more than a forensic understanding. However saying that I can certainly say you believe that a grace is given with those activity in which you participate "drawing you closer" to Jesus Christ transforming a christian more into his likeness. Note you also believe if you don't practice active scripture reading and having a prayer life that your "spiritual growth" is stunted. So in essence we hold God dispensing grace through specified activities just because you don't use the same terminology because it doesn't coincide with your Forensic view of "Salvation". Doesn't mean we don't hold the same consept. Thus your only retort for not having the similiar view with our interaction with God is "But that doesn't affect our salvation". Which of course you mean forensicly.

So, said you are attempting to make me believe God only interacts with you symbolically and not in actuality? I don't believe any baptist holds this view. I guess when baptist want a healing from God they just want it to be done symbolically and not in actuality? I don't think you want to believe that.


Oh, so the thrust of your faith is that no one should make an attempt to live out the life of Christ because its impossible thus by implication. We should be comfortable in sin? But is this whatJesus when he says to us or Paul when he says in Romans 6 and Of course not. And we also see in this verse the contextual unity of Romans starting in the 1st chapter through the rest of his book which unfortunately you want to cut apart as if there isn't a unifying thread in his discourse? Who writes in a manner of no cohesion? Certainly not Paul.


The fact that you seperate the life of Christ from his work on Calvary makes this statement understandable however its not scriptural. Christ's complete work from his incarnation to his resurrection is part of the atonement.

I certainly do believe it

I find it funny that you say this with Paul's writings in the book of Romans where he says That by his death and resurrection and our being united to him in it certainly justifies us even with your forensic view of Justification.

You post covers too much territory and it would be simply vain to attempt to try to spread myself over so much territory.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is very frustrating trying to continue any rational or reasonable discussion with you for one reason. You completely ignore all the evidences I have placed before you that proves you are simply wrong at this very point.

That is because the evidence you provide aren't really evidences but certainly your eisegesis of the text which you assert is proper exegete of the text.

Instead, you simply repeat your mantra as though no response had been given to these assertions.

Do you not think I get frustrated with your responses as they are similarily use the same arguments to "prove" your position? The fact is I think the context of Romans is quite clear and often I am amazed that you don't see it but keep applying your reading as if that was what Paul initially meant. For instance you focus on the example of David's statement regarding forgiveness as if that were the thrust of Pauls discourse. But its not!. Its about faith as the text clearly states that you don't see that amazes me. But you are so trained to see scripture from one view you don't even see how you ignore the rest of the context. So we'll just have to disagree because there can be no meeting of the minds in this discourse with regard to Romans 4. You will continually take it out of the context of the whole where as I try to explain it in the context of the whole.

So again, the pirmary subject is not faith but justification.

So lets go through this once again. First of all I never said that Paul isn't speaking about justification but his focus is on Faith rather than Law in attaining Justification. Your assertion is that Paul's discourse is focused on Repudiating "Sacramentalism". I say he is not rather he is speaking to faith. Particularily the Primacy of Faith (faith first). Which is the specific discourse of the begining of Romans 4. To prove your point you say

1. It is introduced at the beginning as the primary topic - Rom. 3:24

which says

It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Focusing on justification ignoring how he actually starts the discourse with regard to how faith plays in justification in vs. 3:22

the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe

and the larger frame of the discourse revealed in vers 3:27

Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded

which is direct referrence to the theme he has been working on since Romans 2:17

But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God

Because the problem with the Jewish Christians in Rome is they held circumcision to be of value in and of itself expressed in Romans 2:25

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.

Therefore Paul wants the Jews to understand that it is by faith rather than acting in the law of itself which Justifies the person which is what he states in Romans 4:3

For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

contrasting it to works of law making God owe us justification as he shows in the following verse and in context Romans 4:4

Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.

The Jews cannot earn their righteousness by the fact of circumcision (continued context) but it comes by faith Romans 4:9-10

Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.

ie Faith came first before circumcision and it ws the faith that made all the difference because the circumcision was the visible sign of already having that faith (ie outward sign of the inward grace of faith). Which followed faith which he explains in the very next verse Romans 4:11

He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.

Second, it has nothing to do with the "primacy" of faith over works but rather the complete exclusion of works by faith (Rom. 3:27-28; 4:5-6; 21).

So as I just shown, yes it does.

Third, justification is empty and worthless unless righteousness and remission of sins are inherent in its very meaning - Rom. 4:6-8.

That is not what Romans 4:6-8 actually says Remember the Context where Romans 4:4-5 says

Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

where the example of this is from David own words Romans 4:6-8

just as ](example language)David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: (The point where he shows that its not the fact God owes someone something but rather the need for faith apart from the works of the law which is a blessing)

7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

Statements in red are mine.

Bottom line, you have absolutely no exegetical basis whatsoever for your assertions as every assertion is repudiated by sound exegetical examination of this text

So, the actual bottom line is that in fact I do have an exegetical basis. Despite the fact that you enjoy making the accusations.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes, you are wrong about this. I have no idea about your schedule or typing speed. I have no such motive.

However, while we are discussing frustrations, let me share one I have with your posts. You cover too much territory and therefore it is really impossible to get anywhere as we are spread out everywhere.

I accept I may have been wrong about my sneaky suspicion.

As far as your second criticism. I disagree because to understand a passage context must be viewed and context is rarely found just in the immediate. By remaining in the immediate only you will find that many things are taken out of context.

 

[The Biblicist]

Your assertion is that Paul's discourse is focused on Repudiating "Sacramentalism".

You are coverning too much territory and things that are really not pivotal to our disagreement.

We have to deal with the crux of our disagreement rather than peripheral arguments.

Let me respond to your charge above. It is not my assertion that Romans 3:24-5:2 is focused on repudiating "sacramentalism." The focus is on repudiating justification by whatever is characterized by and inherent in what Paul refers to as the "law of works" (Rom. 3:27-28). Romans 4:9-12 is focused upon repudiating one specific classification of justification by works - religious external rites.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

BTW right this minute I must be away biblicist just so you can know to moderate your response in such a fashion as to allow me proper volume and time to respond. So don't make any challenges I might not be able to read and get to yet like "TS will not dare to respond because...." Thank you.

 

[The Biblicist]

BTW right this minute I must be away biblicist just so you can know to moderate your response in such a fashion as to allow me proper volume and time to respond. So don't make any challenges I might not be able to read and get to yet like "TS will not dare to respond because...." Thank you.

Actually what we are talking about is totally different than the OP of this thread. I suggest we take this discussion to the new thread I have opened for exegeting Romans 4:6-8.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are coverning too much territory and things that are really not pivotal to our disagreement.

We have to deal with the crux of our disagreement rather than peripheral arguments.

Let me respond to your charge above. It is not my assertion that Romans 3:24-5:2 is focused on repudiating "sacramentalism." The focus is on repudiating whatever is characterized by and inherent in the "law of works" (Rom. 3:27-28). Romans 4:9-12 is focused upon repudiating one specific classification of justification by works - religious external rites.

Before I go let me quote you about that very thing.

Romans 4:9-10 completely repudiate the Roman Catholic concept of "sacrament" to justification by faith.

So in essense you do. But that isn't what he's doing btw.

 

[Anastasia]

Well, I would imagine the campaigning has come to an end if had to do with this political election. I was working full time (14 hours a day) and it was frustrating trying to keep up and so I can empathize with your frustration.

Correction, onto the 6th pages to catch up on, and that is because I am skipping pages 7-9.

I know what you mean by the time I responded to one of Biblicist post he has posted so much more stuff that I don't have the time shifting through all of it to answer all of it. However, I secretely think this is his stratagy to say we never answer him. He knows with enough volume we will just make our points for brevity rather than spending the time shifting through all his postings to respond to each thing. Though admittedly, I could be wrong about this.

In fact I was reading some of his pasts post so I can accurately quote him and came across a post where he said I won't dare answer something when in fact I never read it because so many things were posted subsequent to it and never read the challenge. Thus I didn't answer his challenge not knowing it was made. I might respond to his dare but it seems to me by the time I'm finish there will be many more such challenges all of which is time consuming to read much less respond to to shift through it. So I find it sufficient just to make my points as I come across some of his points. And answer those things which I had the time to read or which is most current in the discussion.

However, his motus may be that he will only respond to this post and not the post I placed immediately before it.

It's really sad because I would have loved the chance to have a meaningful conversation with him. It would have challenged me to learn and research a little more even though we would almost certainly still end up disagreeing on at least some things.

 

[The Biblicist]

Before I go let me quote you about that very thing.
So in essense you do. But that isn't what he's doing btw.

Are you really reading what I said and what you said???? I think not! Notice in my words that you quote I specifically refer to "Romans 4:9-10" rather than Romans 3:24-5:2!

Did you really read what I said in my response? Doesn't look like it! What I said in my response perfectly agrees with your precise quotation of my words and the reference I gave.

 

[The Biblicist]

Correction, onto the 6th pages to catch up on, and that is because I am skipping pages 7-9.



It's really sad because I would have loved the chance to have a meaningful conversation with him. It would have challenged me to learn and research a little more even though we would almost certainly still end up disagreeing on at least some things.

Why don't you go to the new thread on exegeting Romans 4:6-8 where I am purposely limiting my posts to bite size. There we will get down to the nit grit of the Biblical basis for my disagreement with sacramentalism.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Thinking stuff..

You posted....

See you think Catholics and Orthodox believe that certain prayers and rites and rituals work magically.

They do indeed believe that.

I am an ex catholic. As one example, when a catholic priest lifts up that large circular cracker, and says "the body of Christ"...he means it. It is not symbolic.

The wafer..suposedly..literally becomes the literal body of of Christ, ( His literal flesh, His litteral essence ) while simultananeously apearing as the original cracker.

They simply say..."its a mystery".

God have mercy

 

[The Biblicist]

Thinking stuff..

They do indeed believe that.

That is true! However, in their minds, they reject the term "magic" and attempt to explain it as "spiritual" transformation by God under the term "mystery." However, regardless of terms used it is nonsense.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinking stuff..

You posted....



They do indeed believe that.

I am an ex catholic. As one example, when a catholic priest lifts up that large circular cracker, and says "the body of Christ"...he means it. It is not symbolic.

The wafer..suposedly..literally becomes the literal body of of Christ, ( His literal flesh, His litteral essence ) while simultananeously apearing as the original cracker.

They simply say..."its a mystery".

God have mercy

I can't help that you weren't properly Catechized. First of all Jesus conducts the miracle at the institution of the eucharist at the last supper. That miracle is perpetually resulting in each mass. What is spoken of is a unseen reality of the Substance Which isn't its physical make up but what it is in its actual nature. And it isn't specified as to when it occures but that it does during the liturgy of the Eucharist probably during epiclisis which not lifting it up. All this to explain breifly to someone who thinks they know something because they once were catholic. When in fact many of the Catholics I now meet know nothing about their faith and I must educate them.

So some simple points so as not to confuse you. Jesus performs miracles not magic. Simon the Magician made this mistake with the understanding of the Holy Spirit. Next Jesus tells us how he wants us to relate to him and participate in his life. The Eucharist is one way by which it is Jesus who again performs the miracle not the preist. The priest is just repeating what Jesus said at the institution of the Sacrament. And its God that does the rest. Again Jesus works miracles like changing the water to wine. Not magic. From Catholic literature.

By the miracles of the loaves and fishes and the walking upon the waters, on the previous day, Christ not only prepared His hearers for the sublime discourse containing the promise of the Eucharist, but also proved to them that He possessed, as Almighty God-man, a power superior to and independent of the laws of nature, and could, therefore, provide such a supernatural food, none other, in fact, than His own Flesh and Blood. Nothing hinders our interpreting the first part [John 6:26-48 (51)] metaphorically and understanding by "bread of heaven" Christ Himself as the object of faith, to be received in a figurative sense as a spiritual food by the mouth of faith. Such a figurative explanation of the second part of the discourse (John 6:52-72), however, is not only unusual but absolutely impossible, as even Protestant exegetes (Delitzsch, Kostlin, Keil, Kahnis, and others) readily concede. First of all the whole structure of the discourse of promise demands a literal interpretation of the words: "eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood". For Christ mentions a threefold food in His address, the manna of the past (John 6:31, 32, 49,, 59), the heavenly bread of the present (John 6:32 sq.), and the Bread of Life of the future (John 6:27, 52). Corresponding to the three kinds of food and the three periods, there are as many dispensers — Moses dispensing the manna, the Father nourishing man's faith in the Son of God made flesh, finally Christ giving His own Flesh and Blood. Although the manna, a type of the Eucharist, was indeed eaten with the mouth, it could not, being a transitory food, ward off death. The second food, that offered by the Heavenly Father, is the bread of heaven, which He dispenses hic et nunc to the Jews for their spiritual nourishment, inasmuch as by reason of the Incarnation He holds up His Son to them as the object of their faith. If, however, the third kind of food, which Christ Himself promises to give only at a future time, is a new refection, differing from the last-named food of faith, it can be none other than His true Flesh and Blood, to be really eaten and drunk in Holy Communion. This is why Christ was so ready to use the realistic expression "to chew" (John 6:54, 56, 58: trogein) when speaking of this, His Bread of Life, in addition to the phrase, "to eat" (John 6:51, 53: phagein).

Also it is clear you don't understand how Catholics view the word mystery. It doesn't just mean something unknown in theological speach but something that cannot be known apart from the revelation of God. We know about the Eucharist because Jesus himself revealed it to us in the scriptures in his teaching to the Apostles.

I came by for just a quick look not really intending to post and look what I find. Tsk Tsk. Again goto go.

 

[The Biblicist]

Again you take Romans 4 out of Context. Romans 4 is about faith not about repudiating sacramentalism. As any exegetical review will surely point out. You mistakenly provide an example which Paul gives in regard to forgiveness for sin as his main point when his main point was to show the primacy of faith over the works of the law.

Not a single charge you make above represents my view of romans 4. First, I have never ever said that Romans 4 is about repudiating sacramentalism. I have always limited, restricted my use of Romans 4 against sacramentialism to Romans 4:9-12. I do not believe Romans 3:24-5:2 or Romans 4:1-25 is designed to repudiate sacramentalism. Never said it and never will.

Second, my use of David in Romans 4:6-8 is that it is given by Paul to further explain Romans 4:5 and the constituent parts that make justification to be justification. Please go to my new thread on exegeting Romans 4:6-8 if you want to challenge my position.

It is interesting to note that you always start Romans at chapter 4 rather than taking in the context from the begining as if Paul didn't connect his thinking with the rest of his book.

This is so silly and I have refuted it so many times and NEVER ONCE have you ever responded to the evidence I presented but rather just repeat this silly accusation.

However, I will point out the silliness of this objection once more for your edification.

1. Romans 1:18-3:23 deals explicitly with the sinfulness of man not justification.

2. Romans 3:24-5:2 deals expressly with Paul's doctrine of justification and that is precisely what we are talking about.

3. Romans 4 deals expressly with Paul's primary model for his doctrine of justification.

4. Romans chapters 1-16 deal with many and varied different asepects of salvation whereas Romans 3:24-5:2 deals explicitly with that aspect of salvation called justification.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Thinking stuff...

I can't help that you weren't properly .

Classic! I knew it was coming! Of course!..I wasnt properly Catechzised!!!

That, of course, is the standard diversionary reply

But in reality, nooo, those Nuns and priests who were responsible for teaching us did indeed properly Catechized us. They were as good as any other cult regardind indoctrination and false teaching.

Fortunetly however those of us who encounterd the living Christ, from true christians, know what is going on now. Is every single catholic lost? Not neccarily. I am sure that some stumble upon true saving faith in Catholicism. I am glad they do.

First of all Jesus conducts the miracle at the institution of the eucharist at the last supper. That miracle is perpetually resulting in each mass.

Nonsense. Hogwash. Nothing of the sort occurs at mass.

What is spoken of is a unseen reality of the Substance Which isn't its physical make up but what it is in its actual nature. And it isn't specified as to when it occures but that it does during the liturgy of the Eucharist probably during epiclisis which not lifting it up. All this to explain breifly to someone who thinks they know something because they once were catholic. When in fact many of the Catholics I now meet know nothing about their faith and I must educate them

.

You have been hoodwinked. None of that is true. You are like a fish who at some time "took" the bait. you need to spit it out.

So some simple points so as not to confuse you. Jesus performs miracles not magic. Simon the Magician made this mistake with the understanding of the Holy Spirit

Of course Jesus performed miricals, and still does.. Noboby is disputing that.

Next Jesus tells us how he wants us to relate to him and participate in his life.

Of course. That should be going on all the time. But it FOR SURE it is not going on during the Romish cultic catholic rituals.

The Eucharist is one way by which it is Jesus who again performs the miracle not the preist. The priest is just repeating what Jesus said at the institution of the Sacrament. And its God that does the rest. Again Jesus works miracles like changing the water to wine. Not magic. From Catholic literature.

There are no mircals going on in the catholic rituals. You are eating a piece of bread.

During the Lords supper we are renacting the last supper because our Lord said for us to do that. Its a wonderfull memorial for us.

The Catholic version is pure cultism

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinking stuff...



Classic! I knew it was coming! Of course!..I wasnt properly Catechzised!!!

That, of course, is the standard diversionary reply

Something that is true is not a diversion. It is just the truth and its clear that you weren't properly Catachized. The fact that you call a work of God magic is a clear indicator that you are clearly mistaken. Let me ask you this question if someone is in the hospital and you pray for them and God rids them of the Cancer is that too magic? Of course not. However, that is your supposed "Catholic" thinking in regard to what God is doing. It is clear evidence of your lack of training in the Catholic Faith.

But in reality, nooo, those Nuns and priests who were responsible for teaching us did indeed properly Catechized us

I rather doubt it. Let me give you an example. The Catholic Church teaches against homosexual marriage, abortion, and contraception use. It is clear in the many documents that it has consistently held the practice of these things are inherent evil and against what the church believes. We see many
priest who go against the church's teaching putting forth their own incorrect view like in the case of

Father Lawrence, as an ordained Roman Catholic priest, finds that his conscience does not allow him to teach Christian doctrines

supporting same sex marriage. Or the current review of American nuns who

Vatican crackdown launched last month on the largest leadership organization for U.S. nuns reportedly was spurred on by American Catholic officials...concern is related to the conferences organized by the group featuring "a prevalence of certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith."

It stands to reason that if liberties are taken with Catholic teaching on morals that liberties would be taken with Catholic doctrine. As has been problematic stemming from the large liberal movement attempting to take over since the Vatican II council. But of course for one who is not properly taught their faith wouldn't know this and develop an inproper understanding of their faith. Unfortunately, because lack of proper Catachesis is so frequent Catholics have lost a generation to ignorance. And rarely will people actually study for themselves but rely on what others tell them.

They were as good as any other cult regardind indoctrination and false teaching

And you are welcomed to you opinion despite how misguided it is.

Fortunetly however those of us who encounterd the living Christ, from true christians, know what is going on now.

I am certain you have developed a living faith with people who likewise have a living faith in Jesus Christ and I'm glad for it because honestly I'd rather you have a living faith in Christ than be a Catholic caught in the ignorance perputrated by less than faithful nuns and priests who would lead you to hell. Just like if I were a baptist and you were going to a baptist church where you didn't recieve a living faith I would tell you to leave. But that doens't negate the entirety of baptist as these ignorant Catholics are really representative of the actual Catholic Church.

Is every single catholic lost? Not neccarily

I'm glad you see that and I'm in agreement with you. I

am sure that some stumble upon true saving faith in Catholicism. I am glad they do.

Me too.

Nonsense. Hogwash. Nothing of the sort occurs at mass.

The point was whether you believe or don't believe what is occuring at mass I was presenting what is actually taught about the Mass from a proper Catholic understanding. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant but what you claim to have believed about it was inaccurate. Which I showed directly from a verifiable Catholic Document.

You have been hoodwinked. None of that is true. You are like a fish who at some time "took" the bait. you need to spit it out.

I thank you for your consern. However, I believe I gave it good consideration, prayer and study before accepting the belief.

Of course Jesus performed miricals, and still does.. Noboby is disputing that.

Amen, and good.

Of course. That should be going on all the time. But it FOR SURE it is not going on during the Romish cultic catholic rituals

I believe it is and it is occuring at Catholic liturgies. However, I will give you that in parishes where people don't have a lively faith do to their ignorance perputrated by their leaders that indeed they aren't properly disposed to the wonderful graces of God. And that they are robotically acting out their dead faith. But that is not always the case. Just like a baptist pastor may be spiritually dead one who has faith and is fed by scripture will be lead by the Holy Spirit despite unfaithful leaders and congregational members.

There are no mircals going on in the catholic rituals. You are eating a piece of bread.

I disagree with you. I believe Jesus joins himself to his church perpetually. But again whether you believe it or not is irrelevant in that my goal what to put forth what is actually believed not what is improperly percieved.

During the Lords supper we are renacting the last supper because our Lord said for us to do that.

Have you ever asked yourself why? Do you think it was just for memory sake? After all we have the scriptures. Why actually perform this function? What do you think?

The Catholic version is pure cultism

Of course I understand your view but reject it out of hand saying that the Catholic Church is the infant Church and has continued to this day in perpetuity. But that is why we debate about such things.