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!
Gerhard Ebersoehn said:Rooselk:
".... the doctrine of the Real Presence."
Jesus' 'presence' is 'real' .... AS BY FAITH PARTAKING of His blood and body.
This is how I have phrased my confession.
It is IDOLATRY in any other way to partake in the Lord's Supper. Any other way it is to "CRUCIFY ANEW", the Saviour at every mass. Cursed is it; an abomination for which every partaker in it shall receive the eternal punishment of hell.
Rooselk said:Given that you are not God, nor as far as I know have any authority to speak on His behalf, I would certainly disagree with your contention that eternal punishment in hell is the sure destiny of anyone who receives communion in a way that differs from what you prescribe. Nonetheless, I do agree that Christ died "once for all" and therefore I reject any notion that He is sacrificed again whenever a mass is said.
Gerhard Ebersoehn said:GE:
It is not I who says it; it is the Law ... the Law of God that says thou shalt not have any gods besides Me. To raise the biscuit and declare this is his body is to worship a false god.
Gerhard Ebersoehn said:Yokobo:
".... calling it a biscuit is both irreverant ...."
GE:
So it is a god --- a false one.
Matt Black said:GE, if people here, as many do based on Scripture and what Christians have consitently believed, believe that in some way the bread and wine do become the Body and Blood of Christ, then how on earth can you say that that is idolatry - unless of course you believe that Christ is a false god...
Yokobo said:I couldn't help but note your quoting John 6 symbolic reference. But, unlike Matt. 16, you really don't go into any explanation of the "symbology" of John 6. I would like to state my opposing opinion of this passage. In Matthew 16 Jesus is stating that the disciples should be aware of what the Pharisees are feeding them by way of religious ideology. But this does not seem to be the case in John 6. In fact, the Jews specifically question the doctrine of "eating the very flesh of Christ". Note that in Matthew 16 the disciples are taking the "bread" reference literally and Jesus corrects them, explaining it to be a symbolic thing. This is obvious in the wording of verse 12. This is not so in John 6. Upon the questioning of eating the flesh in the very literal sense, Jesus DOES NOT correct them and explain the symbolic nature, but, instead reinforces the literalness of what he said by repeating it four times. Afterward, it does not state that the Jews understood the symbology, but that IN FACT many left and never followed Jesus again. This only reiterates the absolute extremity of what Jesus was trying to convey to His followers. I think that you have used an obviously symbolic reference to downplay a literal reference that you have not explained. Not everything Jesus said was symbolic. Not everything He said was literal. But we need to be able to understand the difference. Sometimes it's difficult, and sometimes it's not. I, for one, do not believe that the communion service is symbolic. What's so hard to believe that so many would just up and walk away from Christ? Wouldn't it be harder to continue in a faith that required the literalness of the communion rather than the symbology??
The difference between you and I Eric is that I tend to take Christ literally at His word. Let’s take another look at Matthew 16:18 I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.Eric B said:The Apostles are not in question. It was those after them, who were not promised infallibility. Some faithfully passed on the faith, and others began putting thir own spin on it, and others taught ourtright error.
Eric B said:It is not a matter of choosing the most popular ones, or the "majority that agreed on something", and the powerful institution that arose from their teaching.
And that's where you're wrong. You're gorgetting:Agnus_Dei said:The difference between you and I Eric is that I tend to take Christ literally at His word. Let’s take another look at Matthew 16:18 I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Here we see a picture of Christ who just prior to this hands Peter the keys to the kingdom. Christ is establishing an eternal kingdom, His Church. And like the culture the Jews are used to this model kingdom is like that they are used to and Christ is using words in a context that is familiar to their heritage…this is called cultural literacy. Kingdoms have Kings and this eternal kingdom has a King, Christ Jesus, and all kingdoms have stewards and Christ has just established Peter as the kingdoms first Royal Steward by bestowing upon him the keys. We see a model of this in Isaiah 22 and from here we see that this stewardship is successive and is authoritative.
But we see instead, the whole institution changed into a copy of the world's kingdoms. So apparently, that scripture's truth does not rest in an organization; particularly not that organization!We also reread that Christ states that the gates of Hell will never prevail against it. In order for Hell not to prevail against the Church, the Church has to be infallible in her teaching of faith and morals, regardless of whether or not a particular Pope was corrupted or a Priest fails…
That too is promised to all true Christians. Of course, this includes the apostles, but again, there was not class division between "clergy" and "laity". All were supposed to grow and do more for the Kingdom. You system encouraged the masses to remain immature, sit back and let the "professionals" do all the work, and eventually become worldly, but it was all about dominance of the masses anyway.Here is John 14:16-26 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, that He may abide with you for ever. The Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.
Here we see that Christ ensures His Apostles that the Holy Spirit will abide with them forever…Forever Eric…Forever…not until the Apostles die and we then hope for the best, but FOREVER! The Holy Spirit will teach them all things. And that will last FOREVER!
Guess what Eric…it’s the year 2007 and Christ is still good on His Word!
Again; that command is given to all of us. The fact that all are not in one single organization shows that an organization is not what Christ was promising us.Here is Matthew 28:20 All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth. Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo! I am with you all days, even unto the end of the world
Here we read that ALL power is given unto Christ and that Christ commands His Apostles to go to ALL nations and teach them all things that Christ has commanded them, in addition to baptizing. Look, we read once again that Christ will be with his leaders of His Church all days, even until the end of the world! Christ will abide with His Church until the end of the world, not just until His Apostles die and hope for the best…but FOREVER.
And some weren't. Like coying the worlds kingdoms, persecutions, etc.Now Eric is right that error did creep into the Church, but that error and those that propagated those errors were quickly condemned as heretical.
Only in Protestantism…who’s right and who’s wrong…who has the final authority? Me the Bible and the Lord and my interpretation…Hardly…
And that's what you still don't understand. You think I'm advocating some organization, in competition with yours. But I'm telling you, it's not about organizations. Men can go and create all the organizations they want; that just shows their confusion, or pride, or desire for dominance, or whatever. Don't come to me staking the promise of Christ on that, just to show that only yours is the "true" one. There is no organization (all of which either incorporated in a worldly state, or basically organized as soveriegn states themselves) that is perfect. Just like with the real presence issues; it's about the PEOPLE, not the THINGS! If you don't understand that, then you misunderstand the Gospel just as much as those Jews in John.Since Eric’s interpretation of theology disagrees with the Early Church, then by Eric’s admission, Christ’s promise of being with the Church until the end of the world simply isn’t accurate. Unless Eric thinks that His particular sect is the New Testament Church, and if so, then Eric has a mountain to climb to convince us, in addition Eric has other Protestant Sects that have laid the claim of New Testament Church as well. Good luck Eric…
For one, Christ in John prayed that His Church would be one, as He and the Father are one. And the thousands of competing Protestant sects are hardly honoring Christ’s prayer now are they? The problem with Protestantism is that if you were to gather a Baptist, Methodist, Church of Christ and a Lutheran in a room and asked them a simple question in regard to water baptism and salvation and have them to come to a consensus, no one person could collectively answer the question. So no one sect will agree with the other and we’re stuck as individuals that have the wanting desire to serve Christ wandering from sect to sect searching for the Truth.
No it's not. The majority has been wrong, alot. The Church once universally believed the world was flat, made a dogma out of it, and persecuted people over it. the same with it being the center of the universe. The Churches back then were all state governments. Remember, Christ said His Kingdom was NOT of this world. The church has been involved in ungodly conquests, robbing of lands (their method of "spreading the Gospel), racism, genocide, etc. Don't try to say "oh, well, that was just a few corrupt leaders". If people can be in the organization and be false, then Christ was not promising the errorlessness of an organization. Again, it is each individual believer the Kingdom consists of!You say that it’s not a matter of choosing the ‘majority that agreed upon something’, but I disagree. That’s the best method of determining Orthodoxy.
Again, I have heard unbelievers describe a "2000 year crime wave of Christianity". If that is your "witness", then it is you who falsify Christ;'s promise. Again, it is about individual people together in Christ, not an organization.We have close to 2,000 years of Church History as a witness and when Christ promised to teach them all things and abide with them forever, we can have the confidence that Christ’s words didn’t fail and will never fail.
the language of dominance, again. I'm not the one determining Orthodoxy. Church history speaks for itself (more against the faithfulness of the organization than you are willing to admit), as does scripture.Eric may not agree with the early Church, but it’s not Eric’s position to determine what is and isn’t correct Orthodoxy, Christ didn’t leave Eric in an Authoritive position, Christ left His Church that Authoritive position and it is to last until the end of the world.
And who made up those criteria? The leaders themselves, in order to maintain their organizational control over the world. But it still didn't stop all the errors I mentioned above, and the split down the middle. I notice, you leave out the Spirit's guidance there. Everytime I used to mention that, the others on your side would say that that was not enough, either, because all those claiming to be guided by the spirit are still "divided" as well. So the Spirit nor the Word are sufficient to guide into truth, so you claim it is the organization with its tradition. But anyone can come and say that. So you use the Word and Spirit to try to authenticate tradition. But that's just what you criticized everyone else for claiming! So this is cyclical.Let me be extremely clear before I proceed. Scripture is primary and is the final authority on all matters. If we do not hold Scripture up to be the primary source by which we ascertain doctrine and dogma we quickly find ourselves in a heretical situation. Yet until you pick up Scripture and begin to read it (or hear it proclaimed) it really does not do much for you. Once you begin to either read or listen to the Word you begin to interpret what you hear. This is inescapable. We all interpret Scripture when we read it. As Vincent of Lerins said, for as many interpreters of Scripture there are interpretations.
So what did the Church use to determine what is correct doctrine from its inception? The Church has always understood heresy to be one of the gravest sins because; heresy has the potential to steal the Gospel message of its sin cleansing nature. When orthodoxy is distorted the Gospel message is skewed.
So again, what has the Church always used to determine what is correct doctrine? As unfriendly as it sounds to the often myopic Protestant ear, the Church has used Tradition to determine what is and isn’t Orthodoxy.
Tradition is determined by three things: 1) antiquity (what has been believed from the very beginning); 2) universality (what has been believed by all Christians everywhere); 3) consensus (what has been agreed to be orthodoxy, especially by the Church Councils and great Church Doctors).
You did not even deal with where I debunked the whole notion that the earliest fathers taught the later concept of Communion. You just read it into three idle statements but Ignatius, and jump it over to others like Polycarp, who did not even mention it. So what you have is 1900 years of confusion that began a century after the apostles. the Protestant divisions are just the end result of it.So in view of the topic of this thread, I can have the confidence that close to 2,000 years of Church Tradition, backed firmly with Scripture, to conclude that Holy Communion is much more than that view held by Baptist.-
Made a ‘dogma’ out of it? Please provide your references, the year, the Pope of when this ‘dogma’ was defined and also please list the Pope and the year that this ‘dogma’ was corrected, revised, reversed, cancelled or whatever.Eric B said:The Church once universally believed the world was flat, made a dogma out of it...
And I’ll tell you as I told Bob, that the burden of proof is on you to prove that close to 2,000 years of Orthodoxy regarding the Real Presence is wrong and your Baptistic tradition is right.Eric B said:You did not even deal with where I debunked the whole notion that the earliest fathers taught the later concept of Communion. You just read it into three idle statements but Ignatius, and jump it over to others like Polycarp, who did not even mention it.
1900 years of confusion? Show me where the confusion is during the Early Church…You’re losing credibility quickly here Eric…I’m beginning to believe that you’re just a typical Baptist who’s been told what to think and not how to think…Eric B said:So what you have is 1900 years of confusion that began a century after the apostles. the Protestant divisions are just the end result of it.
Matt Black said:Your post assumes that the Real Presence is all about biology; for me it isn't. Even with the Catholic transubstantiation view, there's 'substance' and 'accidents'; you can lab-test the latter but not the former.
Eliyahu, the link does a great job in defending the Real Presence, I’m sure the BB authorities would frown upon such a link, which without a doubt just reinforced my belief.Eliyahu said:Don't you find the contradiction between the following and the claim that the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood physically?
The above posts of you Catholic supporting guys were not admitting that the Accidents remain the same.
Catholic themselves see the problem with Transubstantiation.
wherefore we may gather the Church's teaching on the subject from the contradictory proposition; "Accidentia panis manent sine subjecto," i.e. the accidents of bread do remain without a subject. Such, at least, was the opinion of contemporary theologians regarding the matter; and the Roman Catechism, referring to the above-mentioned canon of the Council of Trent, tersely, explains: "The accidents of bread and wine inhere in no substance, but continue existing by themselves."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
Eliyahu said:The Problem is that the people who claim the Transubstantiation pretends to say even the Accidents are transformed to another Substances.
If the physical substance remains the same, it means the Original substance is changed only in the minds of the people who take them, then it is almost the same as the Remembrance.
So then Jesus Christ is the originator of cannibalism? If we eat His physical body that then makes us partakers of cannibalism. The juice and the bread were not then and never have been actual parts of the body of Christ, just a representation of His body that was about to be broken and His blood that was about to be spilled out for our sins. Why would Jesus institute such a practice?Chemnitz said:In past debates it has been brought up by those who deny the Lord's Supper by claiming that because Jesus is 100% human, it is impossible for him to offer his body and blood in communion because it is physically impossible for the human body to be in numerous places at once and is a finite resource.
However, in the Gospels, Jesus is recorded doing the physically impossible by multiplying fish and bread in order to feed great numbers of people. With this in mind I must ask, "Why is it then impossible for Jesus to do the same with His body and blood in Holy Communion?"