Is scripture the highest authority?

[Thursday]

Luke 22:
19 Then he took a loaf of bread, gave thanks, broke it in pieces, and handed it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Keep on doing this in memory of me.”

The bread becomes his body and his body becomes the bread. It is miraculous.

Your lack of faith is keeping you from seeing what a gift this is!!

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."
St. Ignatius, 107 AD

"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus." St. Justin Martyr, 148 AD

 

[Thursday]

Only believers are sanctified, not all men. I am surprised that has to be explained to a Catholic.
Now answer my question.....
We are either sanctified through Messiah's sacrifice or we are not would you agree?

Of course it is through the grace of Jesus. You are ignoring the questions of who is sanctified, when are they sanctified, and why are they sanctified.

 

[pescador]

You intentionally ignore all verses that prove your position to be unbiblical. It's bizzare.

29For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

Jesus MAKE THIS EXPLICIT:

55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Jesus helped you to understand this earlier in John 6 when he walked on water and multiplied the fish and loaves.

Jesus can be more than one place at one time and in any form he chooses.

He controls time and matter.

My position is not unbiblical by any means. It's 100% true. You are reading something into the Bible that just isn't there.

What do you think "discerning" means? Here is the definition: "to perceive by the sight or some other sense or by the intellect; see, recognize, or apprehend". It's so obvious! Your quote is from 1 Corinthians, written by Paul after Jesus was crucified, died, and ascended to heaven. How could you possibly interpret that to mean eating Jesus' body and drinking his blood? By drinking bread and wine that are symbolic, we are to remember him. There is no other possible interpretation.

Where is Jesus in more than one place at one time? Show me any scripture where there are multiple Christs. He can transcend natural forces but there is only one Jesus.

What other form can Jesus appear to be in other than human? Both before and after his death he was one solitary, real human being. It's just amazing that you can't understand what the Bible clearly says about him.

You're making the Bible, which is 100% true, into some sci-fi novel. You can read all kinds of fantasy into it, but I believe what the Bible clearly says. It is the highest authority of what actually happened.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Of course it is through the grace of Jesus. You are ignoring the questions of who is sanctified, when are they sanctified, and why are they sanctified.

Well, since I am just an ignorant protestant, why don't you enlighten me.....oh, please use scripture since I don't believe in tradition. BTW, you never did answer when the church changed communion from a meal to a crust of bread & sip of wine.....must be someplace there in traditiion.

 

[pescador]

The bread becomes his body and his body becomes the bread. It is miraculous.

Your lack of faith is keeping you from seeing what a gift this is!!

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."
St. Ignatius, 107 AD

"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus." St. Justin Martyr, 148 AD

Scripture is the highest authority. Extrabiblical quotes don't prove anything. They're just opinions.

 

[Thursday]

Scripture is the highest authority. Extrabiblical quotes don't prove anything. They're just opinions.

They demonstrate how the men who learned the gospel from the apostles understood the teachings of Jesus and how they interpreted scripture.

Why would John teach Ignatius something that was untrue? Why should modernist opinions like yours supplant those of the men who learned the gospel from the apostles?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Why would John teach Ignatius something that was untrue?

How do you know Ignatius got it right? What do you have to compare it to, other tradition which may or may not been repeated correctly? Scripture must not contradict scripture, there for we know it is true.

BTW, still waiting on #344.....

 

[pescador]

When did this change take place?

Can you show us a single Christian in the first 1000 years of Christianity who didn't believe in the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist?

Easy. 1 Corinthians 11: "For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep." When was that? People didn't believe in the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist twenty or thirty years after Christ died.

 

[pescador]

They demonstrate how the men who learned the gospel from the apostles understood the teachings of Jesus and how they interpreted scripture.

Why would John teach Ignatius something that was untrue? Why should modernist opinions like yours supplant those of the men who learned the gospel from the apostles?

That's what you believe and you're welcome to it. There were as many heresies then as there are now. Sola scriptura!

 

[Propianotuner]

Actually (your 2nd point) it is, as the Catholic Church is the only that can can trace themselves all the way back to Peter.

Please do demonstrate how. Especially keeping in mind your own word here, "only".

No, but this verse along with Revelations 21:27, Habakkuk 1:13, Matthew 5:24-26,

Using these passages in the sense that they imply Purgatory is also allowing the direct implication that the Atonement is not efficacious to establish justification. That Catholic theologians appear to vacillate away from that implication with the statement that sins purged in Purgatory are merely of a temporal nature, still necessarily denigrates the accomplishment of the Atonement.

And yes 2 Maccabees is divinely inspired, because it was in the original Bible, the one that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to making. It was Martin Luther in the 1500s who took out both 1 and 2 Maccabees as well as 5 other books from the old testament.

Luther doesn't singly, or even primarily, define the Reformed view on the nature of the canon of Holy Writ. See here for a more relatively comprehensive treatment of the subject from a Reformed perspective, and be sure to keep in mind what Jerome did when he presented the Vulgate. Also for clarity's sake: in our discussion there, any references to "the council" in this context are a reference to Carthage.

There are no mental gymnastics, but please point one out to me.

Only the mental gymnastics involved in presuming through executive fiat to state there is clarity in such instances of scripture when droves of other honest minds have lovingly spent their lives studying the scriptures and their history rigorously, without feeling bound at all to come to such conclusions.

 

[Propianotuner]

Which fact that I've posted about Catholic teaching are you having trouble understanding?

Purgatory is the final sanctification of believers.

How is Purgatory necessary for God to accomplish restoration in a person no longer bound by carnality? If He can justify so many people in a short space of time during the Atonement, what need is there for all of this on our part and all of this time spent by God and His subjects, in order to accomplish individual sanctification towards glorification? And is it not God's anxious desire that He have companionship, does He not deserve the companionship already?

How feeble this God appears, who needs Purgatory to accomplish His magnanimous ends.

 

[Propianotuner]

I like the way you put that. Communion used to be a celebration, a meal shared with fellow believers and a joyful rememberance of the sacrifice Messiah made for us. Unfortunately the early church changed that into some mystical performance of a crust of bread and sip of wine changing into something it is not and then everyone is sent on their way. Too bad because the very early church had it right IMHO.

I wouldn't so quickly make light of this doctrine through that tact. Yes, transubstantiation is an Aristotelian concept, and consubstantiation has every appearance of being naught but a vacillation away from it while still maintaining this element of mysticism, but as fellow Christians we must understand and appreciate how compelling Jesus' words must be: this is my body, this is my blood.

It is only natural that we have the urge to maintain that in some tangible sense. As Christians we must not only reverence but partake of the sacrifice. It can conversely be said to Reformed Christians that they tend to view the Eucharist too lightly. We should be excited, our blood should be quickened at the prospect, and as we grow in sanctification this sacrament's spiritual value surely should become more and more heightened with time.

 

[amariselle]

They demonstrate how the men who learned the gospel from the apostles understood the teachings of Jesus and how they interpreted scripture.

Why would John teach Ignatius something that was untrue? Why should modernist opinions like yours supplant those of the men who learned the gospel from the apostles?

The Gospel is contained in God's inspired word, the Bible.

Any different or opposing Gospel is not of God.

 

[Propianotuner]

The Gospel is contained in God's inspired word, the Bible.

Any different or opposing Gospel is not of God.

While I understand and can sympathize with your sentiments here, how far do the contours of soteriology (salvation theology) extend? Simply because other Christians have differing views of how Scripture is defined and what relationship it has to tradition, does it mean they that teach a "different" or even "opposing" Gospel?

The Gospel is the Good News. Surely any Christian sect that at the very least maintains the Good News itself, and confesses the fundamental prerequisites necessary to receive the Good News (i.e. Nicene theology), is on those grounds a Christian sect and should be recognized as a contributor to our family.

 

[amariselle]

While I understand and can sympathize with your sentiments here, how far do the contours of soteriology (salvation theology) extend? Simply because other Christians have differing views of how Scripture is defined and what relationship it has to tradition, does it mean they that teach a "different" or even "opposing" Gospel?

The Gospel is the Good News. Surely any Christian sect that at the very least maintains the Good News itself, and confesses the fundamental prerequisites necessary to receive the Good News (i.e. Nicene theology), is on those grounds a Christian sect and should be recognized as a contributor to our family.

I never said otherwise.

 

[Propianotuner]

I never said otherwise.

I am truly sorry if you took my words in the spirit of an indictment or rebuke. I was uncertain of your meaning and intent, so I wanted to see to what extent we agree about "mere Christianity".

 

[amariselle]

I am truly sorry if you took my words in the spirit of an indictment or rebuke. I was uncertain of your meaning and intent, so I wanted to see to what extent we agree about "mere Christianity".

No, I didn't take your words that way, no worries.

My comment about the Gospel being found in Scripture was in line with the continuing conversation. Doctrines such as indulgences, purgatory and penance were being discussed, and these are not supported by Scripture, and are not part of the Gospel.

What I meant was that Scripture, as the divinely inspired word of God, is where we are to look for the true Gospel of Christ. And any manmade church teaching or tradition that adds to this Gospel (or diminishes it) is not of God.

 

[Propianotuner]

No, I didn't take your words that way, no worries.

My comment about the Gospel being found in Scripture was in line with the continuing conversation. Doctrines such as indulgences, purgatory and penance were being discussed, and these are not supported by Scripture, and are not part of the Gospel.

What I meant was that Scripture, as the divinely inspired word of God, is where we are to look for the true Gospel of Christ. And any manmade church teaching or tradition that adds to this Gospel (or diminishes it) is not of God.

Given your statements here, how do you understand Romans 14?

 

[amariselle]

Given your statements here, how do you understand Romans 14?

I understand Romans 14 to be instructing us not to not get caught up differences over superficial things, like what we eat or drink, and that we are to show consideration for other Christians who have different convictions about these things, so that we do not hinder their faith.

The unScriptural doctrines of purgatory, penance and indulgences, however, are not superficial in the slightest. They actually call into question the sufficiency and adequacy of Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross for our sins.

I'm not trying to be divisive, I am actually truly and deeply concerned by such teachings. Teachings that suggest Christ's death only grants partial forgiveness, and the rest is up to us. This is not the Gospel.

Christ's death was and is enough. His blood covers all sins, and we cannot add to that or improve upon it, nor do we deserve His forgiveness and mercy, and we have done and can do nothing to earn it.

 

[Propianotuner]

I understand Romans 14 to be instructing us not to not get caught up differences over superficial things, like what we eat or drink, and that we are to show consideration for other Christians who have different convictions about these things, so that we do not hinder their faith.

The unScriptural doctrines of purgatory, penance and indulgences, however, are not superficial in the slightest. They actually call into question the sufficiency and adequacy of Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross for our sins.

I'm not trying to be divisive, I am actually truly and deeply concerned by such teachings. Teachings that suggest Christ's death only grants partial forgiveness, and the rest is up to us. This is not the Gospel.

Christ's death was and is enough. His blood covers all sins, and we cannot add to that or improve upon it, nor do we deserve His forgiveness and mercy, and we have done and can do nothing to earn it.

Would you say, in light of this, that such teachings that are peripheral to or even partially deleterious to the Gospel, have the affect of making the Good News less efficacious? Does a general message with these elements included still contain the Gospel?

And are these issues not a direct outcropping of our views on the authority of scripture? Notice how they even use language like "formation" of the scriptural canon, almost as if the authoritative voice with which Scripture was written didn't already presuppose such authority.