Asking "could God do it" is not the test of doctrine. What Scripture states the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ will be consecrated into the bread and the wine and for what purpose?
-
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!
Vicar of Jesus Christ?
- Thread starter steaver
- Start date
- Status
You seem to hold to a different doctrine than Herbert and Utilyan. They have been arguing that a person doesn't of necessity need to do anything but love to enter into heaven, a person doesn't even need to believe in Jesus Christ or confess He is Lord. Is the body of the RCC divided on this issue?
The appropriate Scriptures are: Matt 26 v 26-28. LK 22 v19-20. 1Cor 11 v23-26. For what purpose? Because Jesus said He would never leave us and as the permanent memorial on this earth. By his Real Presence in the Eucharist Christ fulfils his promise to be with us "always, until the end of the age" (Mt 28:20). St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "It is the law of friendship that friends should live together. . . . Christ has not left us without his bodily presence in this our pilgrimage, but he joins us to himself in this sacrament in the reality of his body and blood". As the Scriptures say, it is hard for some to accept this
In the end, who really knows for sure. Will God say to the professing Christian who did not live a Christlike life of love "away from me, I do not know you"? And will he then will He accept the one who does not profess to be a Christian but lives his life in a Christlike manner? In the end it will be His call. All I do know is that I profess Christ as my Savior and having received forgiveness in His name can only try to live a holy and pleasing life for Him from here on out.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Well there is Matt 7 - where Christ informs us that "not everyone who says Lord Lord -- will enter the kingdom of heaven"
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
What a sad state to be in. You mean to tell us that in your system you simply do not know? Yes, that is the fact of those in the RC system, they do not know and this is how Rome controls them. Rome does not want you to know.
On the other hand true believers know for sure; 1 John 5:13. They are bound to believe the Scriptures, not what some system tells them to believe in order to control them.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
not according to the Bible.
In the Bible - Matte 18:20 "20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” (the REAL presence)
Not "Whoever claims to confect the body soul and divinity of Christ - there I am"
He wrote "in the 13th century - according to some of the dark ages ideas he had been taught" -
By contrast - in Colossians 1
" 27 To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" (the REAL presence)
Not - "to make known that whoever claims to confect the body soul and divinity of Christ - there I am"
in Christ,
Bob
So what, He keeps coming and going that you need to keep taking the bread and wine to keep Him charged up? Ridiculous! No I believe as Jesus said He would give me the Comforter and in Him Christ is always with me, I became one with Christ when I was born-again.
If you do not know for sure, you have never been born-again.
BobRyan,
I have responded to this claim. Your mistaken reading of these verses shouldn't be confused with what these verses are actually saying.
Herbert
Martin-
I will get back to the other things soon. But quickly:
I don't see it that way, Martin. I am saying that fragmentation hasn't been able to destroy the Church's fundamental and essential unity for 2,000 years. So the fragmentation that takes place in the Church and despite which it made it through especially the first few tumultuous centuries, is, was, and will be, by virtue of its divine institution, incapable of tearing apart his Body in both its visible and invisible nature. There is still one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. It was instituted by Christ as the very means and principle of unity by which authentic Christianity could rightly be identified.
Whereas, "Reformed churches" share no essential unity, the Catholic Faith, whatever its particular manifestation, rite, etc. shares in the same sacraments, doctrine, and government. And as far as the "ecclesia reformata semper reformanda" phrase goes, it's much like divorcing one's spouse in the name of "reforming" the marriage. Further, what the "Reformed churches" have wrong, apart from the obvious fact that they are "Churches" which are many and were not established by Christ, is that they have only an illusion of Church authority because of the fact that "when I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me." They need to convince themselves of having some sort of authority when their very institution represents the principle by which such an authority was violated. Thus what is understood as "reform" to them is understood by the Church instituted by Christ to be a divergence from the faith in its very nature and essence. In other words, they justify their existence according not the the Church's assessment of them, but according to their self-assessment which masquerades as Sola Scriptura in its million forms. There is, in contrast, one Catholicism, recognized through common sacraments, common faith, and common governance.
Surely, I see scandal, division, disobedience in the Church. But my point is that those things are not able to invalidate or render unrecognizable the Christ-instituted and essential elements of the faith. Again, as I've said to DHK, the Catholic sees harmony between the Church today (as a large Oak) and the Apostolic age (as an acorn planted by the Lord). In contrast, the Reformer must identify rupture, whether in the 2nd Century or with the decrees of the Council of Trent. But, not to downplay the horror of it, I see scandal and division mostly as business-as-usual type of thing. For it even existed among Christ's designated Twelve. You see, in my view, it is what’s to be expected any time people get involved in something. Again, even most of the first twelve Apostles betrayed Christ following His crucifixion. And Judas, one of the twelve, actually sold Him out to the authorities. So modern corruption within the Church is really nothing new. It isn’t by Judas Iscariot that we judge the message of Christ. Nor is it by corrupt bishops, nuns, priests and lay catholics that we should judge the Church. Because for every liar who’s catholic, I will show you a hundred pure-hearted saints. There is a story of a medieval priest who was discussing the faith with a prominent local Jew who was considering conversion. The Jew said that he’d like to see Rome before he was baptized. The priest thought to himself “Great, once he sees the corruption in Rome, he’ll never convert!” Some weeks later the Jewish man met the priest on the street and said “Father, I am ready to be baptized!” The priest responded, saying “So you didn’t go to Rome after all?” The Jewish man said “Oh, I went!” So the priest asked, surprised “Did you see corruption, prostitution among the clergy, political abuses and the worst of human behavior among the Church officials?” The convert said “Indeed, I saw all of those things and more which made me realize that if this Church weren’t divinely protected it would not last a week much less 1,500 years! Baptize me, father!”
In contrast, the division among "Reformed churches" really is what it appears to be: doctrinal confusion with no essential ecclesial unity to speak of on the human side of things. Yes, as I've said, there is unity among us all by His Grace, and through Baptism, and through those Catholic things to which many non-Catholic Christians still hold such as Trinitarian theology.
Herbert
I will get back to the other things soon. But quickly:
I don't see it that way, Martin. I am saying that fragmentation hasn't been able to destroy the Church's fundamental and essential unity for 2,000 years. So the fragmentation that takes place in the Church and despite which it made it through especially the first few tumultuous centuries, is, was, and will be, by virtue of its divine institution, incapable of tearing apart his Body in both its visible and invisible nature. There is still one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. It was instituted by Christ as the very means and principle of unity by which authentic Christianity could rightly be identified.
Whereas, "Reformed churches" share no essential unity, the Catholic Faith, whatever its particular manifestation, rite, etc. shares in the same sacraments, doctrine, and government. And as far as the "ecclesia reformata semper reformanda" phrase goes, it's much like divorcing one's spouse in the name of "reforming" the marriage. Further, what the "Reformed churches" have wrong, apart from the obvious fact that they are "Churches" which are many and were not established by Christ, is that they have only an illusion of Church authority because of the fact that "when I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me." They need to convince themselves of having some sort of authority when their very institution represents the principle by which such an authority was violated. Thus what is understood as "reform" to them is understood by the Church instituted by Christ to be a divergence from the faith in its very nature and essence. In other words, they justify their existence according not the the Church's assessment of them, but according to their self-assessment which masquerades as Sola Scriptura in its million forms. There is, in contrast, one Catholicism, recognized through common sacraments, common faith, and common governance.
Surely, I see scandal, division, disobedience in the Church. But my point is that those things are not able to invalidate or render unrecognizable the Christ-instituted and essential elements of the faith. Again, as I've said to DHK, the Catholic sees harmony between the Church today (as a large Oak) and the Apostolic age (as an acorn planted by the Lord). In contrast, the Reformer must identify rupture, whether in the 2nd Century or with the decrees of the Council of Trent. But, not to downplay the horror of it, I see scandal and division mostly as business-as-usual type of thing. For it even existed among Christ's designated Twelve. You see, in my view, it is what’s to be expected any time people get involved in something. Again, even most of the first twelve Apostles betrayed Christ following His crucifixion. And Judas, one of the twelve, actually sold Him out to the authorities. So modern corruption within the Church is really nothing new. It isn’t by Judas Iscariot that we judge the message of Christ. Nor is it by corrupt bishops, nuns, priests and lay catholics that we should judge the Church. Because for every liar who’s catholic, I will show you a hundred pure-hearted saints. There is a story of a medieval priest who was discussing the faith with a prominent local Jew who was considering conversion. The Jew said that he’d like to see Rome before he was baptized. The priest thought to himself “Great, once he sees the corruption in Rome, he’ll never convert!” Some weeks later the Jewish man met the priest on the street and said “Father, I am ready to be baptized!” The priest responded, saying “So you didn’t go to Rome after all?” The Jewish man said “Oh, I went!” So the priest asked, surprised “Did you see corruption, prostitution among the clergy, political abuses and the worst of human behavior among the Church officials?” The convert said “Indeed, I saw all of those things and more which made me realize that if this Church weren’t divinely protected it would not last a week much less 1,500 years! Baptize me, father!”
In contrast, the division among "Reformed churches" really is what it appears to be: doctrinal confusion with no essential ecclesial unity to speak of on the human side of things. Yes, as I've said, there is unity among us all by His Grace, and through Baptism, and through those Catholic things to which many non-Catholic Christians still hold such as Trinitarian theology.
Herbert
steaver,
You are misrepresenting the position which utilyan and I are presenting. What we are doing is denying the "alones" that are NOT found in Scripture, not placing them where they aren't found.
Adonia, utilyan, and I, though our life experiences, our intellects, etc. are unique, share in the life of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith. If either of us were to unintentionally misrepresent a particular aspect of the Church's teaching, we would quickly seek to align our faith to the faith as expressed by the Church to which Christ entrusted the authority to teach the family of God.
Since this entire conversation began with your presentation of an un-researched misrepresentation of Pope Francis, I guess it's no wonder that 18 pages into this conversation you're still grossly misrepresenting others with utterly baseless charges and outlandish mischaracterizations.
Herbert
You are misrepresenting the position which utilyan and I are presenting. What we are doing is denying the "alones" that are NOT found in Scripture, not placing them where they aren't found.
Adonia, utilyan, and I, though our life experiences, our intellects, etc. are unique, share in the life of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith. If either of us were to unintentionally misrepresent a particular aspect of the Church's teaching, we would quickly seek to align our faith to the faith as expressed by the Church to which Christ entrusted the authority to teach the family of God.
Since this entire conversation began with your presentation of an un-researched misrepresentation of Pope Francis, I guess it's no wonder that 18 pages into this conversation you're still grossly misrepresenting others with utterly baseless charges and outlandish mischaracterizations.
Herbert
I do not look at the term born again the same way you do. This "born again" Christian business is a modern idea and when the newly saved Christian calms down it's back to reality again. I have been a lifelong believer, and even when I shoved my faith aside for a number of years I still believed, but I I embraced man's world here instead of God's world here, but through His forgiveness I am whole again.
I am a realist, and God can do whatever he wants to us and anytime he wants to. Maybe my faith is not as strong as others when I say "I do not know for sure" - so be it. I have come a long way from where I was and when I go to the next world the words: "Have mercy on me Lord" will be on my lips.
steaver,
What makes you think that I am not calm? I am cool as a cucumber. 8^)
Though I can't tell whom God will receive in Heaven or whom He'll send to Hell, I can recognize this:
sanc·ti·mo·ny
(săngk′tə-mō′nē)
n.
Righteousness accompanied by an unwarranted attitude of moral or social superiority; smug or hypocritical righteousness.
Though your sanctimony wasn't warranted, my brushing it off was. Instead of providing me with examples of your "evangelistic" skills and abilities, why don't you just explain to me why your position makes sense? "Using me" to score rhetorical points isn't likely a great way to convince me of what I already suspect- the fact that you can't explain your position so you resort to sophistry and evangelistic show.
The "private" aspect of your interpretation lies not in your merely quoting the Scripture but in your arrogating to yourself the ability to *ultimately* determine who is and who is not going to end up in Heaven or Hell. In other words, though I don't deny a single aspect of truth which you presented in the form of a Bible verse, I do reject your claim to know the Mind of God as far as a fellow human being's eternal well-being is concerned.
And as far as hearing more of what Jesus said is concerned, this is just more sophistry. If you have something so valid to present, go ahead and explain it. Don't beat around the bush. Explain by Scripture, reason, an angel, a prophet, or by the Authority of Christ's Church what it is you believe and why. Until then, as far as your non-catholic doctrines are concerned, you're stuck in the realm of private opinion. Show me how Sola Scriptura was revealed by God. Show me how Sola Fide was revealed by God.
I have presented a host of challenges to Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, the inescapable lack of binding authority in non-Catholic Christianity, etc. none of which you've begun to address.
What you're doing is a lot like trying to intimidate the opposing team at an Awana games tournament. You're missing the whole point, steaver! We're here for arguments and reasoning. And we're all ears! 8^)
Herbert
What makes you think that I am not calm? I am cool as a cucumber. 8^)
Though I can't tell whom God will receive in Heaven or whom He'll send to Hell, I can recognize this:
sanc·ti·mo·ny
(săngk′tə-mō′nē)
n.
Righteousness accompanied by an unwarranted attitude of moral or social superiority; smug or hypocritical righteousness.
Though your sanctimony wasn't warranted, my brushing it off was. Instead of providing me with examples of your "evangelistic" skills and abilities, why don't you just explain to me why your position makes sense? "Using me" to score rhetorical points isn't likely a great way to convince me of what I already suspect- the fact that you can't explain your position so you resort to sophistry and evangelistic show.
The "private" aspect of your interpretation lies not in your merely quoting the Scripture but in your arrogating to yourself the ability to *ultimately* determine who is and who is not going to end up in Heaven or Hell. In other words, though I don't deny a single aspect of truth which you presented in the form of a Bible verse, I do reject your claim to know the Mind of God as far as a fellow human being's eternal well-being is concerned.
And as far as hearing more of what Jesus said is concerned, this is just more sophistry. If you have something so valid to present, go ahead and explain it. Don't beat around the bush. Explain by Scripture, reason, an angel, a prophet, or by the Authority of Christ's Church what it is you believe and why. Until then, as far as your non-catholic doctrines are concerned, you're stuck in the realm of private opinion. Show me how Sola Scriptura was revealed by God. Show me how Sola Fide was revealed by God.
I have presented a host of challenges to Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, the inescapable lack of binding authority in non-Catholic Christianity, etc. none of which you've begun to address.
What you're doing is a lot like trying to intimidate the opposing team at an Awana games tournament. You're missing the whole point, steaver! We're here for arguments and reasoning. And we're all ears! 8^)
Herbert
For those like yourself who reject this truth, what can I say? All early Christians believed this to be a reality and even when the first great schism occurred between the Eastern and Western believers in the 11th century they never abandoned this belief. Then it was another 500 plus years of every faithful Christian believing this to be true until a mere man, a supposed reformer named Zwingli decided he had this new "truth", and thus began the leading away of countless souls from the truth.
The Apostles believed this truth, the Scriptures verify this truth, and the Church continues to uphold and teach this truth to this very day.
The RC system tells me nothing on this issue. As I said in another post I am a realist and perhaps my faith is not as strong in this area and you can look at me as a doubting Thomas here. I'll believe I am in heaven when I get there, and until then the struggle continues.
steaver,
Adonia is right.
From St. Thomas Aquinas:
SINCE, however (as has already been said), the death of Christ is, so to say, the universal cause of human salvation, and since a universal cause must he applied singly to each of its effects, it was necessary to show men some remedies through which the benefit of Christ’s death could somehow be conjoined to them. It is of this sort, of course, that the sacraments of the Church are said to be.
Now, remedies of this kind had to be handed on with some visible signs.
First, indeed, because just as He does for all other things, so also for man, God provides according to his condition. Now, man’s condition is such that he is brought to grasp the spiritual and intelligible naturally through the senses. Therefore, spiritual remedies had to be given to men under sensible signs.
Second, because instruments must be proportioned to their first cause. But the first and universal cause of human salvation is the incarnate Word, as is clear from the foregoing. Therefore, harmoniously the remedies by which the power of the universal cause reaches men had a likeness to that cause-, that is, the divine power operates in them under visible signs.
Third, because man fell into sin by clinging unduly to visible things. Therefore, that one might not believe visible things evil of their nature, and that for this reason those clinging to them had sinned, it was fitting that through the visible things themselves the remedies of salvation be applied to men. Consequently, it would appear that visible things are good of their nature—as created by God—but they become damaging to men so far as one clings to them in a disordered way, and saving so far as one uses them in an ordered way.
Thus, of course, one excludes the error of certain heretics who want every visible thing of this kind removed from the sacraments of the Church. Nor need one marvel at this, for the very same men maintain that whatever is visible is evil in its nature, and is produced by an evil author. And this we rejected in Book II.
Nor is it unsuitable that by things visible and bodily a spiritual salvation is served. For visible things of this kind are the instruments, so to say, of a God who was made flesh and suffered. Now, an instrument does not operate by the power of its nature, but by the power of its principal agent who puts it into operation. Thus, also, then, do visible things of this kind work out a spiritual salvation-not by a property of their own nature, but by Christ’s institution, and from the latter they receive their instrumental power.
~St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Contra Gentiles, Bk. IV, Chap. 56.
Adonia is right.
From St. Thomas Aquinas:
SINCE, however (as has already been said), the death of Christ is, so to say, the universal cause of human salvation, and since a universal cause must he applied singly to each of its effects, it was necessary to show men some remedies through which the benefit of Christ’s death could somehow be conjoined to them. It is of this sort, of course, that the sacraments of the Church are said to be.
Now, remedies of this kind had to be handed on with some visible signs.
First, indeed, because just as He does for all other things, so also for man, God provides according to his condition. Now, man’s condition is such that he is brought to grasp the spiritual and intelligible naturally through the senses. Therefore, spiritual remedies had to be given to men under sensible signs.
Second, because instruments must be proportioned to their first cause. But the first and universal cause of human salvation is the incarnate Word, as is clear from the foregoing. Therefore, harmoniously the remedies by which the power of the universal cause reaches men had a likeness to that cause-, that is, the divine power operates in them under visible signs.
Third, because man fell into sin by clinging unduly to visible things. Therefore, that one might not believe visible things evil of their nature, and that for this reason those clinging to them had sinned, it was fitting that through the visible things themselves the remedies of salvation be applied to men. Consequently, it would appear that visible things are good of their nature—as created by God—but they become damaging to men so far as one clings to them in a disordered way, and saving so far as one uses them in an ordered way.
Thus, of course, one excludes the error of certain heretics who want every visible thing of this kind removed from the sacraments of the Church. Nor need one marvel at this, for the very same men maintain that whatever is visible is evil in its nature, and is produced by an evil author. And this we rejected in Book II.
Nor is it unsuitable that by things visible and bodily a spiritual salvation is served. For visible things of this kind are the instruments, so to say, of a God who was made flesh and suffered. Now, an instrument does not operate by the power of its nature, but by the power of its principal agent who puts it into operation. Thus, also, then, do visible things of this kind work out a spiritual salvation-not by a property of their own nature, but by Christ’s institution, and from the latter they receive their instrumental power.
~St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Contra Gentiles, Bk. IV, Chap. 56.
So tell me then, what Baptists were in on everything in the new evolving Christian Church in the early centuries? Why have I not heard of them? According to the Baptist History and Heritage Society the Baptist faith tradition came out of England in the 17th century as an offshoot of the Puritan-Separatist movement in the Church of England. Isn't that more closest to the truth?
Think of it as a marriage.
There was a time when I got to know about my future wife (engagement)
There was a time when I became acquainted with the facts of the gospel and the Holy Spirit began to work in my life.
There was a time when by faith I decided to ask my wife to marry me. It was faith because I didn't know if she would say yes, and yet I did know based on what I learned about her during our previous time together. The more time I spent with her the more confident I was that she would say yes, and that is faith.
There was a time when I became confident enough of the facts of the gospel that I could put my faith and trust in Christ to save me. My wife is human and fallible. But Christ is God, and His word is infallible as is He. He never fails and always keeps His promises. I knew I could trust Him. Thus I put my faith in Him and I knew I had eternal life according to His promises. "He that hath the Son hath life."
I can look back on my wedding day and tell you all about it--who married us, who was there, the bride Biggrin, bridesmaids, bestman, where it was held, etc. I remember the details.
I can look back on the day I became part of the bride of Christ; that is the day I was saved. I put my trust in the Lord Jesus Christ that day. He saved me, forgave all my sins: past, present and future, gave me eternal life, justified me by faith and faith alone, sanctified me, placed me in Christ, regenerated me, adopted me into his family and made me one of his children, an heir of God and a joint-heir with Jesus Christ, and much much more.
I can remember the date, even the approximate time, the place I was, the people that were with me, etc. (I was not in a church).
Since the day that I was married I have been in a relationship with my wife and that relationship grows better and firmer every day, every year. I appreciate her more and more.
Since the day that I was saved my relationship with Jesus is always "sweeter than the day before." "I love him better every day..." The relationship grows; it does not diminish. The more I read his word; the more I spent talking and communing with Him in prayer, the more I get to know him. This is what the Christian life is all about. He communicates to me through His Word, and I to Him through prayer. I look back over 30 plus years of ministry and I don't regret a thing. Its been absolutely wonderful to see God answer prayer, see him work, not only in my life but in the lives of hundreds if not thousands of others.
- Status