Transubstantiation!!

[Bro. James]

Luther continues to maintain many of the "doctrines of men" as promulgated by the "Mother Church". His main objections were: indulgence: for sale, and papal authority. He may have changed some religious "jargon" around; but the basic definitions have not changed much from mainline Holy See--which of course changes constantly--so it is really difficult to "pin it down."

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Matt Black]

How are you distinguishing between what you call the 'doctrines of men' and Church Tradition? And how do I know that what you are saying is equally not a 'doctrine of man'? You are after all a man propounding a doctrine, are you not?

 

[nate]

Doctrines of Men? This really irkes me to see Baptist's or others just start judging others. Have you read the Apostolic Creed,the Nicene Creed,or the The Athanasian Creed? These are not the doctrines of men but are rather an affirmation of Scripture. To claim that holding to these is holding to the false doctrines of men is not only false but wrong.

 

[Matt Black]

I'm not sure whether that was directed against me or Bro James but I hope I can reassure you by saying that I have read and wholeheartedly subscribe to the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the Definition of Chalcedon and all the other decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils of Christ's Church

 

[nate]

That was directed toward Bro. James. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Matt Black]

No worries I thought it was

 

[Bro. James]

The Word of God needs not errata nor addendum of creeds or commentaries. There is One who will judge: The Lord Jesus Christ--He will be opening the Book, not the Creeds.

Doctrine of men or not? Case in point: the doctrine of baptismal regeneration--is it of God? Or of men? There is nothing convoluted about this issue--one is either saved by baptism or not. It cannot be both. Similiar analogies can be made for most any doctrine to be found in the wide world of Christendom.

Sola Scriptura--for real.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Why were you baptised twice? And the thief on the cross did undergo baptism - re-read Matt 20:22 and Luke 12:50 [/qb]

I was baptized without being born again by sprinkling the water, after taking the exam for the catechism. Thereafter, after 5 years, I had the actual experience of Being Born Again. Then I was baptized in the river.

I was talking about the Robber at the Cross.
Was he ever baptized after Luke 23:45?

Can we replace Baptism with any teaching ?
Luke 12:50 was talking about the Crucifixion !

 

[Matt Black]

You tell me - and tell me how you reach that conclusion. The Word of God can be read either way on that issue - how do you read it, and why, and with what credentials and authority?

[ETA - reply to Bro James. Cross-posted with Eliyahu; as usual I have no idea what the latter means by his post]

 

[Eliyahu]

Returning to OP, if you want to insist on the Transubstantiation, you can prove it by the test results at the laboratories.

Otherwise it was a stupid cheating during the Dark Age under whory Roman Catholic.

Still that kind of cheating is popular in Africa, by the magicians there.

 

[Bro. James]

The Apostle Paul tells us all: "For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, unto good works, which God has before ordained that we shouldd walk in them", Book of Ephesians, Chapter 2, verses 8-10.

This passage of scripture removes the works of men and ourselves. Baptism is a work: one must submit to it and one must administer it--both works of men. Baptism has no regenerating property whatsoever.

Does it get any plainer?

There is nothing "clouded" about this issue. There is no middle of the road position.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[SirColes]

Regarding extra-biblical documents:

I recently read the Apostles' and the Nicene creeds. They seem to do a good job summarizing some important scriptural truths. And that can be nice to have in shortening initial meetings with other believers. However, it is dangerous to build on them or even use them as proof of an idea being right or wrong.

The reason being that it is too much like what the religious leaders did in Israel after the return from exile. It was not because they disliked the law that they created rules to put around it. Actually, they loved the law and wanted to do whatever they could to keep from violating it. So, they created rules to put around the law. The idea was that if they slipped and broke one of their rules, they may still have kept from breaking the law. Unfortunately, each generation added their own rules until the rules became more important than the law and even started contradicting the law (see the concept of Corban).

That is why I say that it is dangerous to build on even these fundamental creeds or use them as any sort of proof. The same can be said for any of the early church practices or writings that are not in the Bible.

So to the original post - understanding what the early church did and believed can be good. Differences between their beliefs and ours should give us cause to reconsider. And as long as that draws us back to studying the scripture to see what it says, then all is well. Of course, just because our beliefs agree with what they taught does not make it right either. So always checking our beliefs against scripture is good.

To that point, this discussion regarding the Lord’s Supper has been quite an eye-opener for me. And from all the posts and differing understandings of the same passages of scripture, I see I have quite a bit of study ahead of me (I did not realize that it is generally accepted that the early church believed in the real presence of Jesus’ body and blood). Yet another belief that needs to be put to the test of scripture…

Still Learning,

SirColes

 

[nate]

Originally posted by Bro. James
This passage of scripture removes the works of men and ourselves.

Amen I think no one is argueing this. Luther based his idea of salvation justification by faith alone. We can certainly not contribute anything towards the salvation Christ offers us.

 

[nate]

Brother Coles I appreciate your post it was filled with sincere honesty. Good to have you on board.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by SirColes:
Regarding extra-biblical documents:
(I did not realize that it is generally accepted that the early church believed in the real presence of Jesus’ body and blood). Yet another belief that needs to be put to the test of scripture…

Still Learning,

SirColes

OP was the Transubstantiation, not the Real Presence.
I do believe the Real Presence everywhere in the world, without exception to the Lord's Supper. Therefore it cannot be an issue at all.
Transubstantiation means that the Substance of Bread and Wine are changed by the Magic Prayer of the RC Priests. This is the key point of the discussion here.

I requested that the Substance must be tested at the Laboratories and if the test prove Bread is transformed into flesh and Wine into blood, then the claim is correct. Otherwise, it was a superstitious cheating by RC during the Dark Age.

Would you comment on this ?

 

[Chemnitz]

I think lab test should be done on Eliyahu to see if he has been transformed into a new creation through his burning in the bosom experience.

No matter how many times you repeat your request, it will remain a ludicrous request. You wouldn't be able to prove anything.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
I think lab test should be done on Eliyahu to see if he has been transformed into a new creation through his burning in the bosom experience.

No matter how many times you repeat your request, it will remain a ludicrous request. You wouldn't be able to prove anything.

It is ridiculous and superstitious cheating by Roman Catholic during the Dark Age, and poor excuses still because they cannot prove it.
If they can prove it, let them prove it!

Why did Jesus say to Thomas, to touch His wounds?

Why did Paul say" For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come" ?

Do you see his words " eat this BREAD ", not the flesh?

 

[Chemnitz]

I think until Eliyahu can prove via scientific lab test, I will not believe he is born again.

It goes both way, Eliyahu. If you are going to stick to a ludicrous notion concerning transubstantiation or any other version of the Doctrine of Real Presence, I will persist in requiring scientific proof of people being new creations.

Once again, you focus on a single word to the exclusion of the context

1 Corinthians 11:27 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

See body and blood linked with bread and wine.

1 Corinthians 10:16 6 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Or how about Paul reminding them they are participating in the body and blood of Christ. Why would he warn them if it was not present?

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
[qb] I think until Eliyahu can prove via scientific lab test, I will not believe he is born again.

It goes both way, Eliyahu. If you are going to stick to a ludicrous notion concerning transubstantiation or any other version of the Doctrine of Real Presence, I will persist in requiring scientific proof of people being new creations .
_______________________________________________________
This is ridiculous allusion by the people who do not have the actual experience of being born again. Normally the discernment is done by hearing the actual testimony about how the person was changed before and afterwards.

_________________________________________________________________________________


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />1 Corinthians 11:27 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

See body and blood linked with bread and wine .
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Does it say that you eat the flesh and drink the blood? Doesn't it say that you participate there? Because they are symbolic ?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

1 Corinthians 10:16 6 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Or how about Paul reminding them they are participating in the body and blood of Christ. Why would he warn them if it was not present? </font>[/QUOTE]He says that we are participating in there, which we do normally every week !

Does he say that the Bread is converted into flesh ? Is it cooked? or uncooked ?
Does he say that Wine is transformed into Blood ?
Can you not participate in the Body and Blood simply by taking them as Bread and Wine symbolizing the Body of Christ ?

When Jesus gave the bread to His Disciples, did they eat the flesh ?

 

[Eliyahu]

Chemnitz,

Interpret this:

All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: 7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. 8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Is your flesh a grass ? Yes or No. Please answer!