Doctrine that Adds to Scripture

[Major1]

Kenneth Henderson on the Didache continued:

"
Concerning Baptism…

Chapter 7. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

So, that seems to fly in the face of the thought that Baptism can only be immersion as some Protestants consider to be the only valid form. This text shows that in the ancient practice, simply pouring water over the head is sufficient. Living water (i.e. moving water such as in a stream) is preferred. Cold water is preferred over warm but warm water is allowed (perhaps in winter to avoid colds?). And yet, in the end, if such arrangements are not possible a simple infusion of water over the head suffices.

Concerning the Eucharist…

Chapter 9. Now concerning the Eucharist, thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.

Though the contents of this prayer do not include the words of Institution (This is my Body….This is my Blood….). There is another more detailed description by Justin Martyr (whom I will talk about later) who did write around the same time that does include these words. Note too that there was a restriction of the Eucharist to fully initiated Catholics is an ancient practice. So you had to have faith in the sacraments and be initiated in the Church before you could receive the Eucharist.

Concerning the Mass…

Chapter 14. But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.

Yes, that sure sounds like Mass to me, and sounds nothing like a typical Protestant service. Especially of the Reformed type. Notice also the repeated words concerning a pure sacrifice. This is completely in line with the teaching that the Mass is a representation of the Bloody Sacrifice of Jesus in an Unbloody manner, holy and pure. Also notice, how attendance is mandatory. It also places an emphasis on being reconciled before attending. I like how it also shows that there is already this universal, or Catholic understanding…In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations. This is a universal faith, to be practiced a certain way among all believers throughout the entire world."

(to be continued)

My comment on water temperature is irrelative. Water baptism does not save anyone.

My comment on the Eucharist is that it does not save anyone either. I do agree that anyone who takes communion must be a born again believer or be in danger of death. Transubstantiation is a Catholic traditional doctrine and has no basis in the Scriptures.

It seems clear to me that you have not attended many Protestant churches.

Romans 12:1..............
"Therefore I urge you, brothers, on account of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God, which is your spiritual service of worship."

Personally, I have never in all my years been to a worship service where the 1st thing done was a prayer of forgiveness of sin and a drawing together ne for another.

 

[Fidelibus]

It seems clear to me that you have not attended many Protestant churches.

Before my conversion to The Catholic Church I was Protestant, and have attended many Protestant churches from Episcopalian to Lutheran to Baptist to non-Denominational, ect. ect. In other words, I've done my fair share of "church shopping". What I didn't find was any unity among these "Protestant Churches." One church said same sex marriage was good, the other said not. One said abortion was okay, the other said not. One said infant birth was okay, the other said not. All claiming that they were under the guidence of the Holy Spirit. So who were in error, and who was not? Where the Lutherans in error, or was it the Episcopalians? Were the Baptists in error or was the non- denominationals in error? I could go on and on Major1 in describing the dis-unity I experienced. What I found in the Catholic Church "was" the unity I was seeking.
I could go to Mass at any Catholic Church in the U.S. or in Africa, or in any Catholic Church through out the globe on any certain day and would hear the exact same Scripture passages being read. Think that would be possible in the thousands of different non-denominational churches in the world including the one you are a member of?

Any way, to get back on topic, the reason for this post was to again ask what are your thoughts on the timeline of St.Paul's 2nd letter to Timothy (2 Tim.3:16-17 in particular) and the significancy it has in reguards to the doctrine and belief of sola scriptura, (the bible alone) and how the Gospel of Luke/ the Acts would have been the only two pieces of literature that would have been widely accepted as New Testament “scripture” at this point. As well on what about all those Christians who for 18 years had nothing of the New Testament writings, and the 33 years before St.Paul would even write these words?

 

[Fidelibus]

My comment on water temperature is irrelative. Water baptism does not save anyone.

Well, as I have already shown the writings of the Didache and the early Church Fathers like, Justin Martyr, (150, a.d.) Irenaeus (189 ad), Tertullian (203 ad), and Hippolytus (215 ad) to name a few beleived differently. So let me ask you Major1, when (approx. year) and by who, is it your non-Denominational church teaches that baptism does not save anyone?

 

[kepha31]

Well, as I have already shown the writings of the Didache and the early Church Fathers like, Justin Martyr, (150, a.d.) Irenaeus (189 ad), Tertullian (203 ad), and Hippolytus (215 ad) to name a few beleived differently. So let me ask you Major1, when (approx. year) and by who, is it your non-Denominational church teaches that baptism does not save anyone?

Baptism? The Bible is perfectly clear!

Among Protestants there are five camps regarding baptism. They just can’t figure out the truth of this matter.

• Luther (as well as some “high” Anglicans and Methodists) held to (infant) baptismal regeneration,
• Calvin to symbolic infant baptism.
• Then there is the position of Baptists and some others: adult “believers” symbolic baptism.
• Yet others believe in adult baptismal regeneration (e.g., Disciples of Christ and Church[es] of Christ).
• A fifth position is denying the necessity of baptism altogether (even though it is clearly a command in the New Testament). This is held by Quakers and The Salvation Army.

So much for perfectly clear.

Read more at John 3:5 and Titus 3:5: Proofs for Baptismal Regeneration?
If you are a non-denominationist, the cafeteria is open.

 

[kepha31]

Well, as I have already shown the writings of the Didache and the early Church Fathers like, Justin Martyr, (150, a.d.) Irenaeus (189 ad), Tertullian (203 ad), and Hippolytus (215 ad) to name a few beleived differently. So let me ask you Major1, when (approx. year) and by who, is it your non-Denominational church teaches that baptism does not save anyone?

Although understanding increases, the essential elements of doctrines exist from the beginning. Today’s Church shouldn’t be expected to look like the primitive Church if it is a living, vibrant, spiritual organism. But even the early Church looks like a small “Catholic tree.” It doesn’t look like a Protestant “statue,” doomed to be increasingly corrupted by an encroaching, “diabolical” Catholicism, as is imagined by millions of Protestants unacquainted with the early Church and the oldest source materials after the New Testament, such as the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch (d.c. 110) and St. Clement of Rome (d.c.101).

John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), the great English convert to Catholicism, who is widely regarded as one of the most profound religious thinkers of his time, wrote in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), the one indispensable work on this subject:

One thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches . . . at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism . . . as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination . . . of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone . . . To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.​

Read more at Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?

 

[Fidelibus]

Thanks Kepha31, your links were great reads. As a convert to The Catholic Church, History of the Early Church, the Early Church Fathers, and how Catholic the Early Church and it's Fathers really were is what led me to my conversion. Thanks be to God!

 

[Fidelibus]

My comment on the Eucharist is that it does not save anyone either.

Here is the Catholic Churches teachings from The Catechism.

The fruits of Holy Communion:

1391 Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. the principal fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus. Indeed, the Lord said: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."223 Life in Christ has its foundation in the Eucharistic banquet: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me."224

On the feasts of the Lord, when the faithful receive the Body of the Son, they proclaim to one another the Good News that the first fruits of life have been given, as when the angel said to Mary Magdalene, "Christ is risen!" Now too are life and resurrection conferred on whoever receives Christ.225

1392 What material food produces in our bodily life, Holy Communion wonderfully achieves in our spiritual life. Communion with the flesh of the risen Christ, a flesh "given life and giving life through the Holy Spirit,"226 preserves, increases, and renews the life of grace received at Baptism. This growth in Christian life needs the nourishment of Eucharistic Communion, the bread for our pilgrimage until the moment of death, when it will be given to us as viaticum.

1393 Holy Communion separates us from sin. the body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is "given up for us," and the blood we drink "shed for the many for the forgiveness of sins." For this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins:

For as often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord. If we proclaim the Lord's death, we proclaim the forgiveness of sins. If, as often as his blood is poured out, it is poured for the forgiveness of sins, I should always receive it, so that it may always forgive my sins. Because I always sin, I should always have a remedy.227

1394 As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins.228 By giving himself to us Christ revives our love and enables us to break our disordered attachments to creatures and root ourselves in him:

Since Christ died for us out of love, when we celebrate the memorial of his death at the moment of sacrifice we ask that love may be granted to us by the coming of the Holy Spirit. We humbly pray that in the strength of this love by which Christ willed to die for us, we, by receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, may be able to consider the world as crucified for us, and to be ourselves as crucified to the world.... Having received the gift of love, let us die to sin and live for God.229

1395 By the same charity that it enkindles in us, the Eucharist preserves us from future mortal sins. the more we share the life of Christ and progress in his friendship, the more difficult it is to break away from him by mortal sin. the Eucharist is not ordered to the forgiveness of mortal sins - that is proper to the sacrament of Reconciliation. the Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church.

1396 The unity of the Mystical Body: the Eucharist makes the Church. Those who receive the Eucharist are united more closely to Christ. Through it Christ unites them to all the faithful in one body - the Church. Communion renews, strengthens, and deepens this incorporation into the Church, already achieved by Baptism. In Baptism we have been called to form but one body.230 The Eucharist fulfills this call: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread:"231

If you are the body and members of Christ, then it is your sacrament that is placed on the table of the Lord; it is your sacrament that you receive. To that which you are you respond "Amen" ("yes, it is true!") and by responding to it you assent to it. For you hear the words, "the Body of Christ" and respond "Amen." Be then a member of the Body of Christ that your Amen may be true.232

1397 The Eucharist commits us to the poor. To receive in truth the Body and Blood of Christ given up for us, we must recognize Christ in the poorest, his brethren:

You have tasted the Blood of the Lord, yet you do not recognize your brother,.... You dishonor this table when you do not judge worthy of sharing your food someone judged worthy to take part in this meal.... God freed you from all your sins and invited you here, but you have not become more merciful.233

I do agree that anyone who takes communion must be a born again believer or be in danger of death.

Since you do not beleive in Baptismal Regeneration as being "born again", and a sola scripturists, could you show the scriptural passage that says "anyone who takes communion must be a born again believer or be in danger of death."

Transubstantiation is a Catholic traditional doctrine and has no basis in the Scriptures.

We Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. We believe! "Transubstantiation" merely labels it. This term was coined in the 1200's, but the reality of the change of substance from ordinary bread and wine into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ was believed by the apostles and their successors along with the Early Church Fathers such as, St. Ignatius of Antioch (110 A.D.), St. Justin the Martyr (100 - 165 A.D.), and St. Irenaeus of Lyons (140 - 202 A.D.) from the day of the Last Supper to the present.

I relize Major1, that many non-Catholics like yourself walk by sight, not by faith in regards to the Eucharist, but that is the exact same mistake the Pharisees and the Roman soldiers made about Jesus. If they could have seen him at His Transfiguration like Peter, James, and John did, they never would have treated Him with any disrespect. Similarly, if we could all see what the Eucharist REALLY is, we would all beg to be in the Blessed Sacrament Chapel 24/7 adoring Christ! But Catholics walk by faith, not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7)!

 

[Major1]

Here is the Catholic Churches teachings from The Catechism.

The fruits of Holy Communion:

1391 Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. the principal fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus. Indeed, the Lord said: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."223 Life in Christ has its foundation in the Eucharistic banquet: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me."224

On the feasts of the Lord, when the faithful receive the Body of the Son, they proclaim to one another the Good News that the first fruits of life have been given, as when the angel said to Mary Magdalene, "Christ is risen!" Now too are life and resurrection conferred on whoever receives Christ.225

1392 What material food produces in our bodily life, Holy Communion wonderfully achieves in our spiritual life. Communion with the flesh of the risen Christ, a flesh "given life and giving life through the Holy Spirit,"226 preserves, increases, and renews the life of grace received at Baptism. This growth in Christian life needs the nourishment of Eucharistic Communion, the bread for our pilgrimage until the moment of death, when it will be given to us as viaticum.

1393 Holy Communion separates us from sin. the body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is "given up for us," and the blood we drink "shed for the many for the forgiveness of sins." For this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins:

For as often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord. If we proclaim the Lord's death, we proclaim the forgiveness of sins. If, as often as his blood is poured out, it is poured for the forgiveness of sins, I should always receive it, so that it may always forgive my sins. Because I always sin, I should always have a remedy.227

1394 As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins.228 By giving himself to us Christ revives our love and enables us to break our disordered attachments to creatures and root ourselves in him:

Since Christ died for us out of love, when we celebrate the memorial of his death at the moment of sacrifice we ask that love may be granted to us by the coming of the Holy Spirit. We humbly pray that in the strength of this love by which Christ willed to die for us, we, by receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, may be able to consider the world as crucified for us, and to be ourselves as crucified to the world.... Having received the gift of love, let us die to sin and live for God.229

1395 By the same charity that it enkindles in us, the Eucharist preserves us from future mortal sins. the more we share the life of Christ and progress in his friendship, the more difficult it is to break away from him by mortal sin. the Eucharist is not ordered to the forgiveness of mortal sins - that is proper to the sacrament of Reconciliation. the Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church.

1396 The unity of the Mystical Body: the Eucharist makes the Church. Those who receive the Eucharist are united more closely to Christ. Through it Christ unites them to all the faithful in one body - the Church. Communion renews, strengthens, and deepens this incorporation into the Church, already achieved by Baptism. In Baptism we have been called to form but one body.230 The Eucharist fulfills this call: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread:"231

If you are the body and members of Christ, then it is your sacrament that is placed on the table of the Lord; it is your sacrament that you receive. To that which you are you respond "Amen" ("yes, it is true!") and by responding to it you assent to it. For you hear the words, "the Body of Christ" and respond "Amen." Be then a member of the Body of Christ that your Amen may be true.232

1397 The Eucharist commits us to the poor. To receive in truth the Body and Blood of Christ given up for us, we must recognize Christ in the poorest, his brethren:

You have tasted the Blood of the Lord, yet you do not recognize your brother,.... You dishonor this table when you do not judge worthy of sharing your food someone judged worthy to take part in this meal.... God freed you from all your sins and invited you here, but you have not become more merciful.233





Since you do not beleive in Baptismal Regeneration as being "born again", and a sola scripturists, could you show the scriptural passage that says "anyone who takes communion must be a born again believer or be in danger of death."




We Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. We believe! "Transubstantiation" merely labels it. This term was coined in the 1200's, but the reality of the change of substance from ordinary bread and wine into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ was believed by the apostles and their successors along with the Early Church Fathers such as, St. Ignatius of Antioch (110 A.D.), St. Justin the Martyr (100 - 165 A.D.), and St. Irenaeus of Lyons (140 - 202 A.D.) from the day of the Last Supper to the present.

I relize Major1, that many non-Catholics like yourself walk by sight, not by faith in regards to the Eucharist, but that is the exact same mistake the Pharisees and the Roman soldiers made about Jesus. If they could have seen him at His Transfiguration like Peter, James, and John did, they never would have treated Him with any disrespect. Similarly, if we could all see what the Eucharist REALLY is, we would all beg to be in the Blessed Sacrament Chapel 24/7 adoring Christ! But Catholics walk by faith, not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7)!

The false Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation is best defined in their own publications. On page 273 of the Baltimore Catechism, we read the following:

"The Holy Eucharist is a sacrament and a sacrifice. In the Holy Eucharist, under the appearances of bread and wine, the Lord Christ is contained, offered, and received. (a) The whole Christ is really, truly and substantially present in the Holy Eucharist. We use the words 'really, truly, and substantially' to describe Christ's presence in the Holy Eucharist in order to distinguish our Lord's teaching from that of mere men who falsely teach that the Holy Eucharist is only a sign or figure of Christ, or that He is present only by His power…”.

It is interesting to note that Bible scholars, such as Albert E. Barnes, William Hendrickson, Matthew Henry, J.W. McGarvey, and Phillip Y. Pendleton, deny what this erring brother's unidentified "scholar" claims. On page 658 of the Fourfold Gospel, by J.W. McGarvey and Phillip Y. Pendelton, we read.............................

"The Catholics and some few others take our Lord's words literally when He says, 'this is My body.' On this, they found the doctrine of Transubstantiation, i.e., that the bread and the wine, when blessed by the priest, become literal body and blood. There are many weighty arguments against such a doctrine, but the main one for it is found in these words of our Lord. But Jesus could not have meant them literally, for his body was untouched and his blood unshed on this occasion when he spoke them. Moreover, in the Mark 14:25, Jesus calls the wine 'the fruit of the vine,' when according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, it had been turned into blood and hence not wine at all."

You asked me to post A Bible teaching confirming................
"anyone who takes communion must be a born again believer or be in danger of death."

1 Corth. 11:18..........
"For first of all, WHEN YE COME TOGETHER IN THE CHURCH..........".

1 Corth. 11:27-30......................
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthly eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause, many are weak and sickly among you and many have died".

How does a man become "worthy"???? He must be born again!

Notice verse #26.........
"'it is to show the Lord's death until He comes'.

It is to honor Jesus for all that his broken body and shed blood bought for us. Communion was the passover celebration to forever remind God's people how the blood of the shed lamb on the door posts caused the death angel to pass over and the unleavened bread was a symbol that they had to be ready for deliverance and to flee Egypt quickly.

Communion is designed to strengthen our faith in the all encompassing finished work that was accomplished through Jesus Christ at Calvary and that does not apply to those who have not come to Christ in the free pardon of sin and are "Born Again"..

 

[Major1]

Here is the Catholic Churches teachings from The Catechism.

The fruits of Holy Communion:

1391 Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. the principal fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus. Indeed, the Lord said: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."223 Life in Christ has its foundation in the Eucharistic banquet: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me."224

On the feasts of the Lord, when the faithful receive the Body of the Son, they proclaim to one another the Good News that the first fruits of life have been given, as when the angel said to Mary Magdalene, "Christ is risen!" Now too are life and resurrection conferred on whoever receives Christ.225

1392 What material food produces in our bodily life, Holy Communion wonderfully achieves in our spiritual life. Communion with the flesh of the risen Christ, a flesh "given life and giving life through the Holy Spirit,"226 preserves, increases, and renews the life of grace received at Baptism. This growth in Christian life needs the nourishment of Eucharistic Communion, the bread for our pilgrimage until the moment of death, when it will be given to us as viaticum.

1393 Holy Communion separates us from sin. the body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is "given up for us," and the blood we drink "shed for the many for the forgiveness of sins." For this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins:

For as often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord. If we proclaim the Lord's death, we proclaim the forgiveness of sins. If, as often as his blood is poured out, it is poured for the forgiveness of sins, I should always receive it, so that it may always forgive my sins. Because I always sin, I should always have a remedy.227

1394 As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins.228 By giving himself to us Christ revives our love and enables us to break our disordered attachments to creatures and root ourselves in him:

Since Christ died for us out of love, when we celebrate the memorial of his death at the moment of sacrifice we ask that love may be granted to us by the coming of the Holy Spirit. We humbly pray that in the strength of this love by which Christ willed to die for us, we, by receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, may be able to consider the world as crucified for us, and to be ourselves as crucified to the world.... Having received the gift of love, let us die to sin and live for God.229

1395 By the same charity that it enkindles in us, the Eucharist preserves us from future mortal sins. the more we share the life of Christ and progress in his friendship, the more difficult it is to break away from him by mortal sin. the Eucharist is not ordered to the forgiveness of mortal sins - that is proper to the sacrament of Reconciliation. the Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church.

1396 The unity of the Mystical Body: the Eucharist makes the Church. Those who receive the Eucharist are united more closely to Christ. Through it Christ unites them to all the faithful in one body - the Church. Communion renews, strengthens, and deepens this incorporation into the Church, already achieved by Baptism. In Baptism we have been called to form but one body.230 The Eucharist fulfills this call: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread:"231

If you are the body and members of Christ, then it is your sacrament that is placed on the table of the Lord; it is your sacrament that you receive. To that which you are you respond "Amen" ("yes, it is true!") and by responding to it you assent to it. For you hear the words, "the Body of Christ" and respond "Amen." Be then a member of the Body of Christ that your Amen may be true.232

1397 The Eucharist commits us to the poor. To receive in truth the Body and Blood of Christ given up for us, we must recognize Christ in the poorest, his brethren:

You have tasted the Blood of the Lord, yet you do not recognize your brother,.... You dishonor this table when you do not judge worthy of sharing your food someone judged worthy to take part in this meal.... God freed you from all your sins and invited you here, but you have not become more merciful.233





Since you do not beleive in Baptismal Regeneration as being "born again", and a sola scripturists, could you show the scriptural passage that says "anyone who takes communion must be a born again believer or be in danger of death."




We Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. We believe! "Transubstantiation" merely labels it. This term was coined in the 1200's, but the reality of the change of substance from ordinary bread and wine into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ was believed by the apostles and their successors along with the Early Church Fathers such as, St. Ignatius of Antioch (110 A.D.), St. Justin the Martyr (100 - 165 A.D.), and St. Irenaeus of Lyons (140 - 202 A.D.) from the day of the Last Supper to the present.

I relize Major1, that many non-Catholics like yourself walk by sight, not by faith in regards to the Eucharist, but that is the exact same mistake the Pharisees and the Roman soldiers made about Jesus. If they could have seen him at His Transfiguration like Peter, James, and John did, they never would have treated Him with any disrespect. Similarly, if we could all see what the Eucharist REALLY is, we would all beg to be in the Blessed Sacrament Chapel 24/7 adoring Christ! But Catholics walk by faith, not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7)!

I appreciate all the copy and pasting you are doing in explaining the RCC view.
But honestly, if you are doing it for me you can cut way back on your work.
If you think it is a help for others Catholic believers, I guess you can keep right on doing it as it has no effect one way or the other on me.

You said................
"I relize Major1, that many non-Catholics like yourself walk by sight, not by faith in regards to the Eucharist."

Do you actually believe that is a proper and correct thing to say when in fact I never said such a thing.

It has nothing to do with faith or sight my dear friend. I just do not accept it at all in the way the RCC presents it.

We are talking about Communion.

The RCC and YOU teach that the bread and wine become the actual physical body and blood of Christ based on their literal interpretation of John 6:53-54. They proclaim that when a observant takes the wafer and wine a miracle happens and the elements literally become Christ's flesh and blood. According to them the transformation of the elements into Christ's literal body is referred to as "transubstantiation."

I do not accept that and I do not believe it. That is not the Biblical view but is instead the RCC view.

Further the RCC sees their Eucharist as a sacrament which effectually takes away sins. A sacrament is seen as an act or ritual that is a means by which God's grace is conveyed to people.

Again, I do not accept that because it is not Biblical.

The biblical view which I ascribe to, teaches that Lord's Supper is not a sacrament, but rather an ordinance given to the Christians who assembled in their churches. However, no where does the Bible state or imply that there are any sacraments or that any act or ritual conveys God's grace. There are no sacraments whereby God, through a rite or ceremony, bestows grace to the individual.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, as I have already shown the writings of the Didache and the early Church Fathers like, Justin Martyr, (150, a.d.) Irenaeus (189 ad), Tertullian (203 ad), and Hippolytus (215 ad) to name a few beleived differently. So let me ask you Major1, when (approx. year) and by who, is it your non-Denominational church teaches that baptism does not save anyone?

I Peter 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

What did the water accomplish in the Flood? What does water accomplish in baptism if, as your first Pope states, the water of the Flood corresponds to that of baptism?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Is baptism a burial to death that eliminates the flesh, putting off the corruptable to put on incorruptable .. While the soul's thoughts are taken captive to Christ.. And where the heart of the human spirit communes with the Holy Spirit in worship..

 

[kepha31]

I Peter 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

What did the water accomplish in the Flood? What does water accomplish in baptism if, as your first Pope states, the water of the Flood corresponds to that of baptism?

1 Peter 3:21 – Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah’s ark, now saves you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear conscience. “ Hence, the verse demonstrates that baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Hebrews 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body). Many scholars believe the phrase “not as a removal of dirt from the body” is in reference to the Jewish ceremony of circumcision (but, at a minimum, shows that baptism is not about the exterior, but interior life). Baptism is now the “circumcision” of the new Covenant (Colossians 2:11-12), but it, unlike the old circumcision, actually saves us, as Noah and his family were saved by water.
SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM - Scripture Catholic

Paleo-Christian Art. Baptism of a child,
2-3rd century
Catacombs of Rome​

 

[DeaconDean]

as Noah and his family were saved by water.

Where they actually saved "by the water" or were they actually saved by the boat that was in the water?

See these type of statements are what split us today.

I was not baptized "for"/"in order to" remission of sins, I was baptized "because of" the remission of sins.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[kepha31]

Where they actually saved "by the water" or were they actually saved by the boat that was in the water?

Both. The boat foreshadows the Church, like the boat that held the fish ( a symbol of men) that Peter caught. John 21:1-14Hence, "I will make you fishers of men." Matthew 4:19
The Baptist View of Baptism: Symbol or Sacrament? (Series on Baptism)

See these type of statements are what split us today.

We didn't split from the historic Church. The CC recognizes most Protestant baptisms as valid. Do you recognize anything in the CC as valid?

I was not baptized "for"/"in order to" remission of sins, I was baptized "because of" the remission of sins.

Agreed.

Protestants are usually much more comfortable with a merely symbolic view of sacraments, for their faith is primarily verbal, not sacramental. After all, it is the Bible that looms so large in the center of their horizon. They believe in creation and Incarnation and Resurrection only because they are in the Bible. The material events are surrounded by the holy words. The Catholic sensibility is the inside-out version of this: the words are surrounded by the holy facts. To the Catholic sensibility it is not primarily words but matter that is holy because God created it, incarnated himself in it, raised it from death, and took it to heaven with him in his ascension.

Orthodox Protestants believe these scriptural dogmas, of course, just as surely as Catholics do. But they do not, I think, feel the crude, even vulgar facticity of them as strongly. That's why they do not merely disagree with but are profoundly shocked by the real presence and transubstantiation. Luther, by the way, taught the real presence and something much closer to transubstantiation than most Protestants believe, namely consubstantiation, the belief that Christ's body and blood are really present in the Eucharist, but so are the bread and wine. Catholics believe the elements are changed; Lutherans believe they are added to.
The Sacraments

 

[kepha31]

CHRIST DIDN'T ABOLISH RITUAL, HE PERFECTED IT

Ritual and “physicality” were not abolished by the coming of Christ. Quite the contrary: it was the Incarnation that fully established sacramentalism as a principle in the Christian religion. The latter may be defined as the belief that matter can convey grace. It’s really that simple, at bottom, or in essence. God uses matter both to help us live better lives (sanctification) and to ultimately save us (regeneration and justification), starting with baptism itself.

The atonement or redemption of Christ (His death on the cross for us) was not purely “spiritual.” It was as physical (“sacramental,” if you will) as it could be, as well as spiritual. Protestants often piously refer to “the Blood of Jesus,” and rightly so (see Rev 5:9; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; Heb 9:12; 1 Pet 1:2; 1 Jn 1:7; etc.). This is explicitly sacramental thinking.

Sacramentalism and the Bible

It was the very suffering of Jesus in the flesh, and the voluntary shedding of His own blood, which constituted the crucial, essential aspect of His work as our Redeemer and Savior. One can’t avoid this: “he was bruised for our iniquities” (Is 53:5).

So it is curious that many appear to possess a pronounced hostility to the sacramental belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, seeing that it flows so straightforwardly from the Incarnation and the Crucifixion itself. This brings to mind an analogy to the Jewish and Muslim disdain for the Incarnation as an unthinkable (impossible?) task for God to undertake. They view the Incarnation in the same way a majority of Protestants regard the Eucharist.

For them, God wouldn’t or couldn’t or shouldn’t become a man (such a thought is blasphemous; unthinkable!). For many (not all) Protestants, God wouldn’t or couldn’t or shouldn’t become substantially, physically, sacramentally present under the outward forms of bread and wine. The dynamic or underlying premise is the same. If Christ could become man, He can surely will to be actually and truly present in what was formerly (and still looks like) bread and wine, once consecrated.

The New Testament is filled with incarnational and sacramental indications: instances of matter conveying grace. The Church is the “Body” of Christ (1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23; 5:30), and marriage (including its physical aspects) is described as a direct parallel to Christ and the Church (Eph 5:22-33; esp. 29-32). Jesus even seems to literally equate Himself in some sense with the Church, saying He was “persecuted” by Paul, after the Resurrection (Acts 9:5).

Not only that; in St. Paul’s teaching, one can find a repeated theme of identifying very graphically and literally with Christ and His sufferings (see: 2 Cor 4:10; Phil 2:17; 3:10; 2 Tim 4:6; and above all, Col 1:24).

Matter conveys grace all over the place in Scripture: baptism confers regeneration (Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet 3:21; cf. Mk 16:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:5). Paul’s “handkerchiefs” healed the sick (Acts 19:12), as did even Peter’s shadow (Acts 5:15), and of course, Jesus’ garment (Mt 9:20-22) and saliva mixed with dirt (Jn 9:5 ff.; Mk 8:22-25), as well as water from the pool of Siloam (Jn 9:7).

Anointing with oil for healing is encouraged (Jas 5:14). We also observe in Scripture the laying on of hands for the purpose of ordination and commissioning (Acts 6:6; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6) to facilitate the initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17-19; 13:3; 19:6), and for healing (Mk 6:5; Lk 13:13; Acts 9:17-18). Even under the old covenant, a dead man was raised simply by coming in contact with the bones of the prophet Elisha (2 Kings 13:21) — which is also one of the direct evidences for the Catholic practice of the veneration of relics (itself an extension of the sacramental principle).

Not ‘magic charms’

Sacramentalism is a “product” of the Incarnation, just as the Church also is. But we must also understand that the sacraments are not “magic charms.” The Church also teaches that one should have the correct “interior disposition” when receiving them...
http://www.themichigancatholic.org/2014/07/christ-didnt-abolish-ritual-he-perfected-it/

 

[DeaconDean]

Both. The boat foreshadows the Church, like the boat that held the fish ( a symbol of men) that Peter caught. John 21:1-14Hence, "I will make you fishers of men." Matthew 4:19
The Baptist View of Baptism: Symbol or Sacrament? (Series on Baptism)

We didn't split from the historic Church. The CC recognizes most Protestant baptisms as valid. Do you recognize anything in the CC as valid?

Nearly everything leading up to and including salvation I dare say we are in agreement with.

Its what the RCC teaches after salvation that we part ways.

Protestants are usually much more comfortable with a merely symbolic view of sacraments, for their faith is primarily verbal, not sacramental. After all, it is the Bible that looms so large in the center of their horizon. They believe in creation and Incarnation and Resurrection only because they are in the Bible. The material events are surrounded by the holy words.

Aka: sola scriptura.

The Catholic sensibility is the inside-out version of this: the words are surrounded by the holy facts. To the Catholic sensibility it is not primarily words but matter that is holy because God created it, incarnated himself in it, raised it from death, and took it to heaven with him in his ascension.

You may be an exception. The "discussions" I have been involved with in the last 2 months, I can't tell you how many times I have been told "because that's what the RCC teaches, their "authority"".

Orthodox Protestants believe these scriptural dogmas, of course, just as surely as Catholics do. But they do not, I think, feel the crude, even vulgar facticity of them as strongly. That's why they do not merely disagree with but are profoundly shocked by the real presence and transubstantiation. Luther, by the way, taught the real presence and something much closer to transubstantiation than most Protestants believe, namely consubstantiation, the belief that Christ's body and blood are really present in the Eucharist, but so are the bread and wine. Catholics believe the elements are changed; Lutherans believe they are added to.
The Sacraments

I don't want to debate, but transubstantiation is the "real" presence, while consubstantiation is the belief that they "spiritually" represent. And both teach that a measure of "grace" is metted out to the person partaking.

I don't see it.

Like I said, I don't want to debate, just relating facts.

Catholicism teaches the act of baptism grants one "remission of sins". (in order to) And in some cases, I've heard from Catholics here state quite loudly that unless you are baptized, you cannot be saved based upon Mk. 16:16. That is adding a "condition" to salvation. Belief + baptism = salvation.

While most the method may differ, most Protestants agree we are baptized "because of" the remission of sins.

I'm sorry, I just don't see it the Catholic and Orthodox way.

But I'll be gracious enough to say may God bless you in your convictions.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Phil 1:21]

And in some cases, I've heard from Catholics here state quite loudly that unless you are baptized, you cannot be saved based upon Mk. 16:16.

That's exactly what we were taught growing up in the RCC. I can still remember in first grade being taught how to perform an emergency baptism with orange juice to keep someone from going to hell.

 

[Major1]

Where they actually saved "by the water" or were they actually saved by the boat that was in the water?

See these type of statements are what split us today.

I was not baptized "for"/"in order to" remission of sins, I was baptized "because of" the remission of sins.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Deacon, I appreciate your thoughts but if water baptism is a step of salvation then it would also be an act of work, something we would do in addition to what Jesus did.

But the Bible clearly says that we "are saved by grace through faith, "AND NOT OF OURSELVES".

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

John the Baptists' baptism is the one that is a water baptism. It's a repentance baptism. That means that those who were of a repentant heart came to him to be baptised in preparation for He Who was about to come. The Coming One would baptise with fire.

John's whole ministry was that of preparing the Way. Belief in the Lord comes from hearing. Repentance portrays the recieving of the new heart. The recipient of the new heart feels compelled to ceremoniuosly and publicly display, like a marraige ceremony, the new union. The new union is a setting apart dedicated to the new husband (Christ) and in recognition of the death of the old husband (self)
(I think that sacramentally that is baptism and recieving of the new name, but I may be wrong)

However .... that is still just the Baptism of John and as Apollos found out that is not enough to be a disciple of Christ. The baptism of fire has not come upon that.

Jesus demonstrated a double baptism received from Him. The first was breathed upon them as disciples. That is the air that disciples breath. It's for the daily living as His disciples. We breath Him in at all times and breath out that which is foul. Constant vigilance because He has sent us out into the world as sheep among the wolves.
But what He sends out He also equipts so the fire from on high is also given to accomplish His work. So one baptism of the breath of God is for living and the other baptism that is the mantle to His servants is seen as the fire by night and the cloud by day that leads those who have dedicated (set apart) their lives as Nazirites to Him. Numbers 6:2

 

[Major1]

John the Baptists' baptism is the one that is a water baptism. It's a repentance baptism. That means that those who were of a repentant heart came to him to be baptised in preparation for He Who was about to come. The Coming One would baptise with fire.

John's whole ministry was that of preparing the Way. Belief in the Lord comes from hearing. Repentance portrays the recieving of the new heart. The recipient of the new heart feels compelled to ceremoniuosly and publicly display, like a marraige ceremony, the new union. The new union is a setting apart dedicated to the new husband (Christ) and in recognition of the death of the old husband (self)
(I think that sacramentally that is baptism and recieving of the new name, but I may be wrong)

However .... that is still just the Baptism of John and as Apollos found out that is not enough to be a disciple of Christ. The baptism of fire has not come upon that.

Jesus demonstrated a double baptism received from Him. The first was breathed upon them as disciples. That is the air that disciples breath. It's for the daily living as His disciples. We breath Him in at all times and breath out that which is foul. Constant vigilance because He has sent us out into the world as sheep among the wolves.
But what He sends out He also equipts so the fire from on high is also given to accomplish His work. So one baptism of the breath of God is for living and the other baptism that is the mantle to His servants is seen as the fire by night and the cloud by day that leads those who have dedicated (set apart) their lives as Nazirites to Him. Numbers 6:2

Those are excellent thoughts. I think that it would be helpful to remember that
baptism did not begin with Christians. For many years before Christ, the Jews had used baptism in ritual cleansing ceremonies of Gentile proselytes. John the Baptist took baptism and applied it to the Jews themselves—it wasn’t just the Gentiles who needed cleansing. Many believed John’s message and were baptized by him because the baptisms John performed had a specific purpose.

In Matthew 3:11, John the Baptist mentions the purpose of his baptisms:.........
“I baptize you with water for repentance.”

Paul affirms this in Acts 19:4:............
“John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”

John’s baptism had to do with repentance—it was a symbolic representation of changing one’s mind and going a new direction.

Matthew 3:6 says.............
“Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River”.

Being baptized by John demonstrated a recognition of one’s sin, a desire for spiritual cleansing, and a commitment to follow God’s law in anticipation of the Messiah’s arrival.