My faith: Josiah (CaliforniaJosiah)

[RecoveringwithChrist]

I enjoyed reading your testimony. You are blessed to have had such a Christ-filled upbringing. And it doesn't matter if your upbringing didn't have all the ups and downs that many others experienced...if everyone went through the same thing growing up, we would all be the same. Our upbringings are all unique, because we are all unique children of God!

Amen! That's what makes God's creation so interesting. He makes everything so unique. He's a master artist. There isn't a single tree that has it's branches all in the same spot. He make's everything so unique.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

ECF on Sola Scriptura:


St. Irenaeus of Lyons (+ca.195):

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
(Against Heresies, 3:1.1, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 414.)


St. Athanasius (c.296-373):

The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.
(Against the Heathen, I:3, quoted in Carl A. Volz, Faith and Practice in the Early Church [Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1983], p. 147.)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386):

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.
(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23.)


St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):

...we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.
(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)


St. Gregory of Nyssa:

Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.
(On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)


St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430):

Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord; but [let them show their church] by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself, by the preaching and labors of the evangelists; that is, by all the canonical authorities of the sacred books.
(On the Unity of the Church, 16, quoted in Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], p. 159.)


St. Augustine of Hippo:

What more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture sets a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behooves to be wise,” but be wise, as he says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God has allotted the measure of faith.”
(On the Good of Widowhood, 2, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. III, p. 442. The quotation is from Romans 12:3.)


St. John Chrysostom (c.347-407):

Let us not therefore carry about the notions of the many, but examine into the facts. For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer to [our own] calculation; but in calculating upon [theological] facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things...
(Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. XII, p. 346.)


St. John Chrysostom:

Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.
(Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 96, p. 118.)


St. John Chrysostom:

They say that we are to understand the things concerning Paradise not as they are written but in a different way. But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our eyes to all things and follow the canon of Holy Scripture exactly.
(Homily 13 on Genesis.)


St. John Chrysostom:

There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?" How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, 'I speak the truth.'" No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.
(Homily 33 on the Acts of the Apostles [NPNF 1, 11:210-11; PG 60.243-44])


St. Basil the Great (c.329-379):

They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases [persons], and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.
(Letter 189 [to Eustathius the physician], 3, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. VIII, p. 229.)


St. Basil the Great:

What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if “all that is not of faith is sin” as the Apostle says, and “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,” everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.
(The Morals, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9, p. 204.)


St. Basil the Great:

We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.
(On the Holy Spirit, 7:16.)


St. John of Damascus (c.675-c.749):

It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments.
(On the Orthodox Faith, I:2, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 37.)







.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

"Fathers" on the Eucharist



Irenaeus

“He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles” (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).


Real Presence Not Transubstantiation. No Accidents.






Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).


Real Presence. No Transubstantiation.




Justin Martyr

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).


Real Presence. No Transubstantiation.




Irenaeus

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).


Real Presence. Nothing about Transubstantiation.




Clement of Alexandria

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).


Real Presence. No Transubstantiation. No Accidents.





Tertullian

“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).


Real Presence. Nothing about Transubstantiation.




Hippolytus

“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).


Real Presence. Nothing on Transubstantiation or Accidents.





Origen

“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).


Real Presence. Nothing about Transubstantiation or Accidents.





Cyprian of Carthage

“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).


Real Presence. Nothing at all on Transubstantiation.




Council of Nicaea I

“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).


Real Presence. Nothing at all about Transubstantiation or Accidents.





Aphraahat the Persian Sage

“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).


Real Presence. Nothing about Transubstantiation at all.






Ambrose of Milan

“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).


Real Presence. Nothing on Transubstantiation or Accidents.





Council of Ephesus

“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).


Real Presence. Nothing about Transubstantiation.






ALCHEMY and TRANSUBSTANTIATION:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ss...=onepage&q=transubstantiation alchemy&f=false





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Judges 5:24 Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent.


Jael was thus a perpetual virgin, conceived without original sin, the Co-Redeemer with Jesus, and was assumed into heaven body and soul upon her death.

 

[steve_bakr]

"Fathers" on the Eucharist

Irenaeus

“He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles” (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).

Real Presence Not Transubstantiation. No Accidents.


Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Real Presence. No Transubstantiation.

Justin Martyr

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Real Presence. No Transubstantiation.

Irenaeus

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Real Presence. Nothing about Transubstantiation.

Clement of Alexandria

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Real Presence. No Transubstantiation. No Accidents.


Tertullian

“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

Real Presence. Nothing about Transubstantiation.

Hippolytus

“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Real Presence. Nothing on Transubstantiation or Accidents.


Origen

“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Real Presence. Nothing about Transubstantiation or Accidents.

Cyprian of Carthage

“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Real Presence. Nothing at all on Transubstantiation.

Council of Nicaea I

“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Real Presence. Nothing at all about Transubstantiation or Accidents.


Aphraahat the Persian Sage

“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Real Presence. Nothing about Transubstantiation at all.

Ambrose of Milan

“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Real Presence. Nothing on Transubstantiation or Accidents.

Council of Ephesus

“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

Real Presence. Nothing about Transubstantiation.

.

Welcome back. I'm not an expert on this subject. But it seems to me that transubstantiation was a Scholastic explanation about "how" the Eucharist became the Real Presence in a time when Aristotle was being rediscovered, so to speak, in the universities. St. Thomas Aquinas became the exemplar in explaining the Catholic faith using the paradigm of Aristotle.

Karl Rahner observed that explanations that are useful in one age might not be as useful in another. As I said, I'm not an expert on this subject, but it seems to me that this Scholastic theory of Transubstantiation may fall under that category and there may well have been some good theology done on this subject that I don't know about.

The Catholic way of doing things would be not to drop this theory but re-interpret it in new and creative ways. The distinguishing character of the Catholic approach is not that the Real Presence is IN the Eucharist but that the Eucharist IS the Real Presence.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

EOC and Transubstantiation


These Orthodox sites expressly reject the term "transubstantiation" and Roman Catholic scholasticism. http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.ph...1249&catid=606 and this Orthodox site which also expressly rejects the term "transubstantiation" and Roman Catholic scholaticism. http://tasbeha.org/content/community...ic,3069.0.html

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Brief Overview in History of the View of the Apocrypha
Date......... .............Event................................ ........................... .................. Apocrypha considered fully inspired?

c. 400 B.C. Malachi ends the O.T. Scripture. N/A

c. 100 BC–c. A.D. 100 The community who copied the Dead Sea Scrolls never referred to the Apocrypha as “It is Written” or “God Says” as they did with other canon books. No

c. A.D. 30 Jesus never rejected the Jewish Canon (which was the same as the Protestant O.T.); Jesus never quoted from the Apocrypha as Scripture. No

A.D. 40 Philo, Jewish philosopher, refers to all but 5 O.T. books and never quotes from the Apocrypha. No

c. A.D. 40–90 The New Testament writers do not quote from the Apocrypha as Scripture. No

A.D. 90 The Council of Jamnia drew up a list of canonical books for Judaism at the time—the Apocrypha are excluded. No

A.D. 80–100 Josephus, Jewish Historian, never lists the Apocrypha as Scripture. No

A.D. 170 The first verifiable canon listing from the Church Fathers was found in the writings of Melito of Sardis and the Apocrypha are missing. No

A.D. 320s Another listing by Athanasius lists canon books, but the Apocrypha are missing. No

A.D. 382–405 Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin, opposed the Apocrypha as Scripture, though he translated it. No

c. A.D. 350–370 Rufinius lists the Canon books, and the Apocryphal books are not among them. No

c. A.D. 350–370 Cyril of Jerusalem rejected the Apocrypha. No

c. A.D. 343-381 Council of Laodicea rejects most of the Apocrypha except Baruch. No (except 1)

A.D. 393 Regional Synod of Hippo, influenced by Augustine, is the first listing of the Apocrypha as Scripture and approved at the regional Council of Carthage (397). See the discussion above on Hippo. Yes

A.D. 590–604 Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome, in his writings denies Maccabees as canonical but still says it is useful according to Roman Catholic patristics scholar, William Jurgens. Openly denies

A.D. 1445 Council of Florence declares the Apocryphal books are canonical. Yes

c. early A.D. 1500 Catholic Cardinal Cajetan (who opposed Luther) points out that there are two levels of inspiration, and the Apocrypha, Judith, Tobit, books of Maccabees, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus were the lesser of inspiration and seen as non-canon books. No (Secondary canon)

A.D. 1520 Polyglot Bible of Cardinal Ximenes (approved by Pope Leo X) published. No

A.D. 1517–1520s Protestant Reformation retains the Jewish canon and that of Jerome and many others with no Apocrypha. No

A.D. 1546 The Council of Trent finalized the Roman Church additions of the Apocrypha as full canon. Yes
------------------
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...k-at-the-canon

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Matthew 26:26-29

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink of it all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I will you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine again until I drink it with you in my father's kingdom." (see also Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20)


1 Corinthians 11:23-29

The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."



There are four major "schools" on these...


Real Presence: This view accepts these verses "as is" - with nothing added, deleted or substituted, and with no pagan philosophies or rejected pre-science theories imposed. "Is" = is, every time (Real, present, exists). "Bread" = bread, every time. "Wine/cup/fruit of the vine" = wine, every time. That's it. That's all. It accepts that what we recieve IS the Body and Blood of Christ. While Real Presence technically doesn't mention the bread and wine, it doesn't IN ANY SENSE deny such "exists" either - it's just insignificant. This view is currently embraced by Lutherans, as well as some Anglicans and Methodist.

Transubstantiation: First expressed in 1134, first officially mentioned in 1214 and made dogma exclusively in the RC Denomination in 1551, it holds that the word "is" should be replaced by the word "CHANGED." It then holds that this CHANGE happens via an alchemic transubstantiation (from which comes the name for this view). This, however, causes a problem with the texts which mentions bread and wine AFTER the Consecration (in First Corinthians, MORE than before) in EXACTLY the same way as such is mentioned BEFORE the Consecration. This veiw replaces those words, too. Instead, this view holds that "bread" and "wine" be replaced with, "an Aristotelian ACCIDENT or appearance or species of bread and wine but not really bread and wine at all - just the 'empty shell' of what is left over after the alchemic transubstantiation CHANGE. It denies that bread and wine are present in any full, literal, real sense (in spite of what the Bible says). Two pagan ideas are imposed: Transubstantiation and Accidents. Several words are deleted: "Is" "bread" and "wine" (the later two only after the Consecration). This view is the official Eucharistic dogma of the RCC since 1551. No other church holds to it.


Spiritual Presence: This view is a variation of the Real Presence view. It is the same except that Christ's two natures (God and man, divine and human) are seen as separable now, so that Christ's human nature is now in heaven and thus CANNOT be here. Christ IS literally present but ONLY in His divine nature. While metaphysically it is unclear how He is present other than as always, in practice it is given special significance in Communion. This view is usually associated with Calvin and is still found among some Calvinists.


Figurative/Symbolic/Memorial Presence: This view holds that the word "is" indicates a figure of speech, and that the bread and wine are here made SYMBOLS or FIGURES or memorials of His Body and Blood. Christ is not "present" at all (in any sense other than He always is present), but the bread and wine are symbols of Christ and His sacrifice. It is often compared to the Old Covenant Passover Meal - a memorial to REMIND us of things. The terms "body" and "blood" so stressed by Jesus and Paul are simply stripped of their USUAL meaning and said to be "symbols" or "figures" or "memorials" of them. "Is" doesn't mean "is" but "a figure of." This view is typically associated with Zwingli, who often quoted Jesus' statement "I am the door" as proof that here Jesus means a figure. This view is now popular among modern American "Evangelicals." It is not infrequently found among some Calvinists and Catholics, too - especially in North America.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

A GREAT source of information about Luther

LOTS of quotes...
LOTS of corrections on very common misconceptions:

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics

A blog by James Swan, a poster at the forums of CARM

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Great Jesus OOPSIE.....

Jesus seems to command Baptism in the Great Commission but He neglected to say, "but do not - repeat DO NOT - baptize anyone under the age of X or with an IQ under X or without first being educated with X or first proving to everyone their great emotional distress of repentance or reciting the sinners' prayer!" He meant to say that, but.... well..... forgot. Oops.

And Jesus seems to place baptism and teaching together, indeed on the same plain, with nothing indicating one having greater importance or significance than the other, or one following the other. This is a major oopsie on His part. What He MEANT to say is, ".... baptizing them and teaching them - no, I take that back, just teach them since I can ONLY use teaching and baptizing is a complete waste of time and water and accomplishes nothing, I don't know WHAT I was thinking there, forget the baptism them part .... just teach them." He meant to say that, but.... well..... forgot. Oops.


Paul and Peter made a lot of BIG oopies when it comes to Baptism, too. Sadly.
Super True Stories: Paul's Baptism Oopsie (Episode One) - YouTube



My perspective.


Pax


- Josiah



.

 

[Teesang]

It was a nice testimony. Praise God for all that he has done to you! If you have an android phone, there is an app called Daily Bible Quotes that would share your testimony in their app if you just email their developer.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

From Robert Reymond, in The Trinity Review, 12/99

Re: Matthew 16:

Roman Catholic Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick prepared a paper to be delivered at Vatican I (1870), in which he noted that five interpretations of the word "rock" were held in antiquity:

(1) The first declared that the church was built on Peter, endorsed by seventeen fathers.

(2) The second understood the words as referring to all the apostles, Peter being simply the Primate, the opinion of eight fathers.

(3) The third asserted that the words applied to the faith that Peter professed, espoused by forty-four fathers, some of whom are the most important and representative.

(4) The fourth declared that the words were to be understood of Jesus Christ, the church being built upon him, the view of sixteen fathers.

(5) The fifth understood the term "rock" to apply to the faithful themselves who, by believing in Christ, were made the living stones in the temple of his body, an opinion held by only very few.

Kenrick's paper was not permitted to be delivered at the Council but was published later, along with other insights, under the title, An Inside View of the Vatican Council, ed. Leonard Woolsey Bacon (New York: American Tract Society, 1871). See also W. H. Griffith Thomas, Principles of Theology (London: Longmans, Green, 1930), 470-471.


These statistics show that the view that eventually became normative for Rome was a minority view in the ancient church, being held by about 20 percent of the fathers consulted, and thus far from certain. Where is Rome's allegiance to this ancient tradition? It obviously does not suit Rome to follow its Tradition at this point.



.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

There are FOUR Eucharistic views.

1. Real Presence: The words of the Eucharistic texts are what they are and mean what they mean. "Is" = is. "Bread" = bread. "Body" = body "Wine" = wine "Blood" = blood. Every time those words appear in the Eucharistic texts - before, during and after the Consecration. NOTHING added. NOTHING deleted. NO substitutions. NO explanations. NO pagan, prescience (and wrong!) ideas imposed and dogmatized. NO "physics" explanations at all. Just - Jesus said it, Paul penned it - I accept it. This is known as "Real Presence" and it is the Lutheran positon. [Yes, on VERY, VERY, rare cases, Luther said "in" or "with" or "under" and in one or two cases, two of the above together in reference to the Eucharist in the context of Transubstantiation, but this should NOT be viewed as some metaphysical or scientific "explanation" or dogma about location; and yes "Sacramental Union" was a common PIOUS OPINION among many Lutheran Fathers - but not dogma and not seen outside of Real Presence]

2. Divine Presence. Actually a range of ideas, found in some ECF but today usually associated with Calvin. This argues that Christ IS "really present" but ONLY in His Divine Nature (Calvin believing the two natures being separable). In some ECF, it's hard to distinquish this from Real Presence above. Here, "body" and "blood" are not seen literally. While Lutherans and Calvinists historically loved to debate this, today most Calvinists it seems to me have abandoned this view and have change to #3 below.

3. Symbolic, figurative or commemorative. This is a flat denial of any literal presence - in either nature - unless we think of this as in the sense that Christ is present EVERYWHERE, all the time. This sees the Eucharist as a commemoration, a remembrance. Some argue that it is "symbolic" just as our flag is of our nature (serves solely to jog our memory) but actually, it's typically seen as more than that - but still a rejection of Christ being present in any literal sense (although perhaps specially). Originally a very, very minority position - this has become the modern "Evangelical" view and often the modern "Reformed/Calvinist" view, as well as popular among very liberal Christians (Protestant and otherwise). Liberal Catholics tend to go to this view rather than #1 or 2 (or even the Greek view).

4. Transubstantiation. Like several other theories (including the medieval Catholic theory of Consubstantation), this dogmatizes a theory of HOW Christ is "really present." It orginated in a scholastic debate over why the mass and weight of the elements does not increase after the Consecration. Before the RCC's split off, there was already a preference for the word "CHANGE" in lieu of, in place of, in stead of the consistent word used in the Eucharistic text, "IS" (IS having to do with presence, CHANGE having to do with a conversion; note - Luther spoke of "change" too but he meant a change is what is present, as did many ECF, not a physics change to the molecules). Having changed the word from "IS" to "CHANGE" (and thus the issue from what is present to what kind of CHANGE happened), the medieval, RCC, western "Scholastics" invented SEVERAL baseless THEORIES - often with a desire to merge the pagan "pop" (and wrong) ideas of the day; to "explain" things with the popular (and wrong) pre-science "physics" then existing. ONE of those pop ideas was the foundation, the keystone of alchemy (all the rage in the middle ages - indeed, even in Luther's time). Alchemy was all about CHANGE - a fundamental CHANGE brought about via magical incantations and elements. The CHANGE alchemy today is known for is changing lead into gold, but actually alchemy was focused on all kinds of change. The name for this fundamental point of alchemy, the point of it all, was "transubstantiation." It's a VERY specific, rare, highly technical word for THAT change, alchemy's change (there were MANY far, far more popular and common words for a generic "change"). Thus, these medieval, western, RCC, Scholastics theorized that an alchemic transubstantiation' happens. But this caused a problem: in alchemy, the change in reality causes a notable change in properties - so if there's a technical "transubstantation" into Body and Blood happens, there should be the properties of meat and blood (and of course, there is not). So, these "Scholastics" just plugged in another pagan, "pop" (and wrong!) idea of the day (continuing even into Luther's time): Accidents. This comes lock, stock and barrel from Aristotle who taught that there can be PROPERTIES of something that no longer actually exists (these properties he called "accidents"; today Catholics call these "appearances"). His example: Lightening. The ancient Greeks did not understand that the event is actually an electrical discharge, they thought the event was a flash of light - and they saw the sound (thunder) as a property of such. BUT (Aristotle's whole point), not knowing that light and sound are both waves moving a VERY different speeds, Aristotle noted that the PROPERTY (sound) is noted AFTER the reality (the light) no longer exists. The PROPERTY (sound) exists when the reality no longer does. THAT he called "accident." Ah - that's what we have in the Eucharist. An alchemic transubstantiation happens, but the properties are still those of bread and wine (which disappeared) because they are "accidents."

How, the Greeks have a FAR, FAR simplier view: Remember, already, there was some preference for the word "CHANGE" to the word "IS" that actually is used in the Eucharistic texts. So, you'll find the East noting a "change" (and they are APT to mean a change in the elements themselves, not in what is present - the sense we normally see in the ECF and in the Lutheran Fathers). BUT (and this is critical), they reject all the alchemic and Aristotelian stuff that is the essence of Transubstantiation. As my Greek Orthodox friend puts it, "Transubstantiation is a whole lot of Catholic nonsense." Like Lutherans, the EOC passionately embraces Real Presence and rejects ANY attempt to "explain the mystery" or to give a "physics" explanation or to dogmatically explain the location of Christ. Yes - the Greeks MAY use the word "change" differently than Lutherans do, but it is NOT change in ANY Catholic sense.


I hope that helps....


Pax


- Josiah

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I find it ironic that at various websites, there is a constant flow of Catholics starting threads, "One Protestant Converts to Catholicism!" And then Catholics all posting about the FLOOD of phantom Protestants coming into the RCC. EWTN has a whole show about how the RCC is so overwhelmed by all this converts that it just can't keep up with them!


The reality is NO denomination on the planet has LOST more members than the RCC. EX-Catholics (including a goodly percentage of the posters at CARM) make up about 10% of the US population; if we were a religious group, we'd be the second largest in the country. Read EX-Catholic, FORMER-Catholics, LEFT the RCC. Thirty MILLION. Having been to France and Spain several times, I suspect the percentage of EX-RCC's is far greater there. About HALF of the members of my Lutheran congregation are in this number, EX-Catholics. About HALF.


Ironic that Catholics search and search and search for the FEW that are joining (sure, they DO exist) making a HUGE deal out of every SINGLE ONE (cuz there are so few) in order to bury their head in the sand about the MILLIONS leaving.


The Catholic Review > Fertile Soil: Thirty million former Catholics: What can we learn?http://reform-network.net/?p=5301


A Papal Visit


http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/20...09p8_3032.html


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/re.../2707937/posts



I'm NOT rejoicing in this. I'm NOT saying it's unique (I've been to Protestant Europe, too!). I just find this Catholic obsession with all these people flooding into the RCC so ironic. I think of the Ostrich every time. It's good way to insure the gushing will continue.

 

[graciesings]

I find it ironic that at various websites, there is a constant flow of Catholics starting threads, "One Protestant Converts to Catholicism!" And then Catholics all posting about the FLOOD of phantom Protestants coming into the RCC. EWTN has a whole show about how the RCC is so overwhelmed by all this converts that it just can't keep up with them!

Really, Josiah, you're trying to tell me that the liberal media is making a conscious effort to make Catholicism look good? If anything, I got the impression that the media was doing anything it could to make Christians look stupid!

The reality is NO denomination on the planet has LOST more members than the RCC. EX-Catholics (including a goodly percentage of the posters at CARM) make up about 10% of the US population; if we were a religious group, we'd be the second largest in the country. Read EX-Catholic, FORMER-Catholics, LEFT the RCC. Thirty MILLION. Having been to France and Spain several times, I suspect the percentage of EX-RCC's is far greater there. About HALF of the members of my Lutheran congregation are in this number, EX-Catholics. About HALF.

Well, I guess I'll skew the numbers then.

God bless and redirect you,
Grace

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That's the HORROR of OSAS....


The Gospel is: Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. Yes, faith is a part of this whole, but it is the OBJECT of that faith that matters, not the quanity or quality of it. There is only ONE appropriate question: "In WHOM do I rely?" "To WHOM is my faith directed?" CHRIST is the Savior (not my faith), so the issue is the sufficiency of CHRIST, not faith.

IMO, what these later-day "Calvinists" that invented OSAS did was change the Gospel, and like Catholics, changed the focus from Christ to self (although BOTH stress that what is in us comes solely from God). For Catholics, it became the quantity and QUALITY of our lives, for these latter-day Calvinists, the quantity and QUALITY of our faith. Both create a "terror to the conscience" since there is no way to know if I'm good enough, if my faith is "true" or sufficient in quality and quantity.


An illustration:

Let's say Bob grows up in a Dutch Reformed Church, the child of a Deacon and the church organist and Sunday School Superintendent. He professes Christ - and this certainly seems sincere. "I believe it all!" Bob goes to Dartmouth College and rooms with an agnostic, who converts him. Bob now holds that Christianity, while it CAN have a good role, is simply false; Christ, if he ever lived at all, was in no sense whatever God or Savior. "I reject all that"

Let's evaluate from an OSAS position: There are three possibilities:

1. Bob NEVER believed. He totally, sincerely, absolutely thought he did, he said he did, everyone else totally believed he did. But he lied and they misunderstood. IF he REALLY believed, with TRUE faith, SUFFICIENT in quality and quantity, then he COULD NOT have "fallen away." Bob is going to hell - what he thought and said for 18 years was a lie.

2. Bob still believes. He totally, absolutely, completely rejects everything Christian but he still believes it all. Bob is lying to himself and everyone else and it is stupid for others to take what he professes and renounces with ANY seriousness: people lie, people misunderstand themselves. Bob is going to heaven.

3. Bob does NOT believe now but he is going to heaven anyway because for 18 years, he DID believe. The proper formula is: "Salvation is by faith in Christ AT ANY POINT IN ONE"S LIFE" so that a Buddhist monk, a passionate atheist is still going to heaven if - for a microsecond - the HAD faith. Of course, there's no way to know if one ever did. And Scripture is wrong to say we must CONTINUE in faith since continuing or enduring has nothing to do with anything.

So, can Bob or anyone have any veiw as to whether Bob is (or ever was) a Christian? Nope.


Now, Bob graduates with a Ph.D. in philosphy and has written books on the glories and correctness of being an agnostic. But Calvinists don't know if he's a Christian or not, saved or not, going to heaven or not; if he EVER had TRUE faith or even if he does now. In time, Bob marries Sally, a good Reformed Baptist. Bob begins going to church with Sally and eventually with the kids. While it takes 10 years, Bob states that he now believes it all. He is now a Christian. Bob and Sally become leaders of the High School Youth Group and lead a Bible study group for seekers. Bob writes a book on Christian Apologetics.

Let's evaluate from the OSAS position: There are 3 possibilities -

1. Bob ALWAYS believed. It's just for 20 years, he lied (albeit entirely sincerely; he genuinely and completely THOUGH he rejected Christianity and was an agnostic). Because he believe as a kid, he HAD to believe during those 20 years and HAS to believe now. Bob is a Christian, saved, going to heaven, HE ALWAYS WAS because once you believe - you cannot do otherwise. His return to the faith only confirms this. When people SAY they reject Christ, they lie. Don't consider what people sincerely and genuinely say they believe.

2. Bob does NOT believe! If his faith had been true and real, he never would have fallen, he never would have FOR TWENTY YEARS condemned Christianity, one with TRUE faith - sufficient in quality and quantity - could not and would not do it. His "return" is disgusting and hypocritical. You just can't believe what people SAY they believe - however genuine or sincere - because people unknowingly, unintentionally LIE all the time. Bob is a pagan and is hell bound. His pastor should remove him from his positions and excommunicate him.

3. Bob was saved when he was a kid and professed faith, Bob was saved for those 20 years when he boldly denied Christ and all of Christianity without faith, Bob is saved now because he has faith. Faith has nothing to do with anything. It's Sola Gratia - Solus Christus. There is no faith that matters, which is why it doesn't matter if Bob had or has faith.


Sally is killed in a horrible accident as she serves as a volunteer crossing guard at the kid's Baptist school. Bob concludes that all this God stuff is a hoax and condemns God. He returns to his agnosticism - only now as atheism. He writes a best selling book about how Christianity is the most cruel hoax there is. Bob dies in this position.

Let's evaluate from the OSAS position:

1. Bob always believed. He is again lying to himself and everyone else - as people OFTEN do. Bob sincerely, genuinely, passionately THINKS he rejects Christ but this is not a possibility. Bob believed as a kid - with REAL and TRUE and SUFFICIENT faith, ergo he is a Christian and saved. You can't believe what people say and do and proclaim because they lie all the time, they simply have NO WAY TO KNOW if they are trusting in Christ or not. Bob does and died a Christian. His funeral was at a Dutch Reformed Church, arranged by his brother. The pastor proclaimed that this atheist, famous for his anti-Christian books, is now in heaven and is a Christian which is why he is conducting this Christian funeral for him.

2. Bob NEVER believed. He NEVER had TRUE or REAL or GENUINE or SUFFICIENT faith. He never did. He lied. For over 30 years, he LIED. He never believed. He THOUGHT he did - sincerely, genuinely, passionately - and everyone else thought that, too! But it was all a lie. People LIE all the time about this stuff - although nearly always unintentionally because they GENUINELY and sincerely and passionately THINK they are trusting in Christ. But they aren't. You just can't believe what people profess. The Dutch Reformed pastor refuses to do the funeral, proclaiming that Bob is in hell - and God is glorified by the burning flames in which Bob is suffering; God gets off on this.

3. Bob is in heaven in spite of not having faith, because faith doesn't matter. All that matters is that God is getting His way. Whether Bob had faith - ever - is irrelevant. All that matters is what God gets off on: seeing Bob in heaven or watching Bob burn. It's Sola Soverignty, not Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - SOLA FIDE.


Bottom line:

So, there is NO WAY for Bob or anyone to know if Bob is or ever has been a Christian, saved or heaven-bound. Not when he was a kid, not when he was writting all those anti-Christian books, not now.

Calvinists have to explain

Why?

Who appointed these latter-day Calvinists to clarify things for God? Who appointed them to have the last word? Who appointed them to explain what God MEANT to say but just forgot?

they can rationalize

I think they think too highly of their own brains, their own fallen, sinful, limited, human brains. I think they can THEORIZE - but when it destroys the Gospel, when it creates a "terror of the conscience," when it replaces the certainty of CHRIST with the altogether uncertainty of the quality and quanity of faith, then it's an unbiblcal and HORRIBLE theory.

My Greek Orthodox friend often says of Catholics, "The Roman Church has never learned how to shut up." "The Roman Church is altogether in love with itself and it's own crazy theories." I think sometimes this applies to some Protestants, too. As does she.

a proclomation of faith is no longer good enough, false faith versus true faith

There you are. A rejection of Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. A rejection of CHRIST as the Savior and point. A terror of the conscience since our faith has nothing to do with anything. I may sincerely, totally, absolutely, passionately profess Christ - and be damned to hell - to God's glory. You, me....... we CANNOT know. At all. Ever. And it all depends on ME - the QUANTITY and QUALIty of faith - irrelevant because I could just be unknowingly lying to myself and everyone else.




Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CULT


IMO, "cult" is a very vague, "slippery" terms of no clear universal meaning that is often used in a derogatory manner; it's very usefulness is it's vagueness.


My dictionary defines the word....

CULT. Noun. From Latin "to cultivate."

1. A set of religious beliefs and rites.
2. Attachment or admiration to a person, institution or set of principle(s) beliefs.
3. A group of followers; a sect.



I think in contemporary RELIGIOUS usage, it has several connotations:

1. A minority view or practice that is untraditional and thus "unorthodox."

2. Excessive in terms of attachment

3. There is a connotation of being irrational or extreme in terms of beliefs and/or attachment. There may be a "loyalty" to the cult that seems extreme and irrational, perhaps seen as without adequate basis.

4. There is an excessive separateness or "being apart." Cults may be communal or (as in the Amish) simply setting itself aside from others.

5. There is a sense that the church/sect/institution was directly founded by God and has various, unique, God-given authorizations, promises and responsibilities.


Groups, sects, denominations, churches may be understood as "CULTS" or they may be understood as "cultic" - the later only indicating SOME aspect of "cult" may apply. Note that all the points above are very subjective and often are a case of what one views as "excessive" or "irrational." Members of these "cults" do NOT conclude that ANY of these qualities apply to their church since in THEIR view, it is not "excessive" or "irrational." And while they MAY agree that it's "untraditional" they often claim their views actually PREDATE what many see as "traditional," they view OTHERS as "perverting" tradition.



Is the RC Denomination a "cult?'

In MY opinion, no. I realize, it's a HIGHLY subjective evaluation but from my years of studying groups many could call "cults" it simply lacks what that label would require.

I DO think it is "CULTIC" at two points (just two).....

1. Cults tend to have a STRONG institutional sense, and they tend to insist, quite passionately and foundationally, that GOD directly "founded" their church (as a specific institution) and promised IT (exclusively) a variety of things: To especially lead, to protect, to teach, etc. And authorized IT a variety of things: To be the Mouth or Prophet or Vicar of God, to found the "real" church, to interpret Scripture (usually infallibly), etc. I see this in the RCC, too. Often to an extent equal to and often greater than in the groups often labeled as "cults."

2. The RCC embraces the typical "cult" epistemology of designating itself as "The Authority," as ultimately infallible and unaccountable. It itself declares that (usually because it claims it is "GOD'S CHURCH") is exempt from accountability and whatever it (officially, formally) says is just to be accepted because it itself is saying it. There is a "Because I say so!" foundation/centrality to RCC epistemology. See the current Catholic Catechism # 87 or "The Authority of the Church" by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie, for example.

Now, does sharing two things with "cults" make the RCC a cult? Of course not! That would be silly. I share MANY common things with Hitler (both men for example) but it's silly to argue that ergo I'm a Nazi (or ergo he was a American Lutheran scientist).

But again, there is an unavoidable SUBJECTIVE aspect to any evaluation (all of Christianity COULD be seen as cultic!)


Is the RCC "Apostate?"

The word means, "to revolt." "Apostate" usually means to have abandoned a correct position, to abandon correctness.

The view that the RCC became "apostate" is a foundational view of Restitutionalism. It is NOT a belief of Protestantism. Luther and Calvin did not believe that the RCC was once an infallible/unaccountable denomination that once taught all things perfectly - but at some point, revolted and abandoned and rejected all that. That IS a view shared by some Protestants but only because AT THAT POINT, they are ALSO Restitutionalists.

I simply believe that at SOME points (few), the RCC is baseless or wrong. Because it still holds to the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, I personally tend to see it as a valid denomination (along with MANY others), I simply conclude that SOME of its claims, practices and doctrines are baseless and/or irrelevant and/or incorrect.




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Answer this:
WHO is the Savior?


IF you answer "Jesus" then Jesus is the Savior. Not you - not a bit, not at all, not now, not ever, not in any way or shape or form or manner. Salvation is entirely, wholly wrapped up in Jesus. It's entirely HIS work. HIS heart. HIS love. HIS mercy. HIS gift. HIS blessing. His life, His death, His resurrection. His Cross, His blood, His sacrifice. His righteousness, His obedience, His holiness. Not you. Not yours. You may have some other role in some other matter, but not this. The "job" of Savior belongs to Jesus. Not you.

IF you answer "ME!" then you are the Savior. Not Jesus. Not a bit, not at all. Not now, not ever. Not in any way, shape or form or manner. Salvation is all wrapped up in YOU. YOUR works. YOUR will. YOUR love. YOUR efforts. YOUR merits. YOUR obedience. YOUR righteousness. YOUR holiness. YOUR sacrifice. Not Jesus. Not Jesus'. Jesus may have some other role in some other matter, just not this one. The Savior is you.

Which is it? Try answering that. If you give the Christian answer, a LOT of Christianity falls into place.



.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Why I LEFT the RCC:


1. I disagree that Christians are a specific institutional denomination, the RCC as the RCC itself alone so insists for itself alone. The egotistical, divisive, INSTITUTIONAL, self-centered, self-serving, power-grabbing, truth-evading, accountability-denying claims of it itself alone for it itself alone was something I found to be very unbiblical, unreasonable and absurd. I came to believe that Christians are PEOPLE, and so the "assembly, community, gathering, communion" of PEOPLE is also PEOPLE - not a denominational, geopolitical, legal, denomination. I rejected the self-serving ecclesiology of the RCC. I came to embrace the ancient creed: one, holy, catholic communion of believers. And thus all the OBSESSION the RCC has with itself, all the enormous egotistical power-grabbing, lording-it-over-all-as-the-Gentiles-do" of the RCC increasingly revealed to me that the RCC is wrong. In what is the foundation of the RCC, the key point on which it stands or falls. The claims of the RCC here are not only unbiblical and unhistorical - but dangerous and absurd.


2. I came to reject the epistemology of "just swallow WHATEVER I'M officially saying because I'M alone saying it." This "just drink the koolaid I'M feeding 'ya and shut up" rubric (CCC 87, etc.). The foundational epistemology of the RCC (and also all "cults" known to me). Over and over and over in Scripture (OT and NT) we are told to beware of false teachings - yet the RCC forbids this. Jesus praised Christians for doing this - yet the RCC condemns that (Rev. 2:2, etc.). I came to embrace that the TRUE TEACHER is likely to come into the light, to welcome the light, to insist on accountability - because TRUTH would matter, not the unmitigated power and lordship of self alone over all. It is the teacher of FALSEHOOD who is likely to hide in the dark, reject the light, insist on building around self huge, thick, divisive walls of egotistical and power grabbing and self serving claims of self for self, insisting that he alone just be given a "pass" on truthfulness and that all just swallow whatever self alone says cuz self alone is saying it and self alone tells all to do that. Now.... I DO agree with a sense of "authority" but Catholicism (and also all the cults) confuse authority with dictatorship. There is a BALANCE between authority and responsibility, a balance the RCC has entirely, wholly, completely, absolutely abandoned - ironcially becoming the very thing it PRETENDS to reject: self appointing self the sole and UNACCOUNTABLE teacher, interpreter, judge, jury - a dictator. Now, what seems interesting to me is that generally, Catholicism is very sound, I have a huge respect for Catholic scholarship, and I think RCC theology is generally excellent. I am profoundly impressed with much of Catholic doctrinal history. So why the RCC retreats into a very unbiblical, unsound, dangerous, "cultic" epistemology puzzles me - but it does.


3. A "Catholic" by Catholic definition is one who just docilicly swallows what the RCC feeds them... BECAUSE it itself alone does. Truth is irrelevant, the only point is the RCC shouting "don't be insubordinate to ME!!!!!!!" That's the whole enchilada. Either you do - and thus you are Catholic, or you don't and thus you aren't. This finally dawned on me. While I largely AGREED with the RCC (I still agree with probably 95% of what it teaches - doctrinally and morally), I agreed with it MORE than the great majority of "Catholics" (I MUST put that in quotation marks!), I was not Catholic at all. What I accepted I did because I viewed it as true and sound - NOT because I was blindly being subordinate. I was what our deacon so powerfully condemned as the "greatest threat to the Catholic Church since Gnosticism" - I was a "Protestant hiding in the Church" as he characterized it, what he regarded as much WORSE than a "Cafeteria Catholic" which he also insisted were by definition not Catholic at all. If one doesn't mindlessly accept the ecclesiology and epistemology of the RCC - and thus SUBMIT to it (right or wrong, good or sound), then one is not a Catholic. Then I'm not Catholic. In MY view, my leaving was a move of integrity, honesty, character: an unwillingness to lie, to give false witness.


I sought a fellowship that embraced humility, accountability, community. That was Christocentric rather than self-centered, that lifted high the Cross rather than the denomination. I looked for at least some attempt at BALANCE between authority and responibility, that pointed to an Authority OTHER than self. It was important to ME that the teachings be biblical and historical. I wanted a fellowship that embraced the teachings I felt strongly were TRUE, but didn't insist I accept things I could not so embrace. It was important to ME that worship be liturgical and sacramental. That the fellowship be pro-life, pro-family. I eventually found that in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. AT FIRST, I saw it as "Catholic Light" - embracing all I felt dear but none of the reasons why I had to leave the RCC. But in time, I came to embrace the GOSPEL, the Law/Gospel distinction, the "Theology of the Cross" - I became Lutheran, not "Catholic light." Just my journey...... I know LOTS of other ex-Catholics. Sadly, most of them have become nothing, they are just unchurched now. One is now Eastern Orthodox, one is conservative Anglican, one now is also Lutheran, one goes to a big non-denom (my brother). But most, I'm sad to report, have been pushed out of the RCC but not embraced by another. There are 30 million of us ex-Catholics just currently just in the USA alone. I wish churches did a FAR, FAR better job of reaching out to us - not by ATTACKING the RCC (because I LOVED my church!) but my offering humility, community, accountability; sound, biblical, simple, relevant, historic theology.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Error of the RCC's lost view of Consubstantiation:


http://stand-firm.blogspot.com/2012/...ation-and.html
Lutherans believe that Christ’s true body, the same body that was incarnate in the Virgin Mary, crucified on the cross, touched by the apostles, and ascended into heaven, is essentially (truly and substantially) present here on earth in the Supper, although invisibly in a way beyond understanding. It is received orally with the bread by the godly and the wicked alike, because the Sacrament is not founded on people’s holiness, but upon God’s Word; likewise Christ’s blood with the wine. Thus, the Holy Supper works consolation and life in the believing, and condemnation in the unbelieving.
...
Just as Christ’s unchanged human and divine natures are inseparably united, so the natural bread and Christ’s true natural body are united (likewise the wine and the blood). This is not a personal union (as that of the two natures of Christ), or a mystical union (as that between Christ and the believer), but a unique and incomprehensible sacramental union; not a natural or spatial combination, mixture, or fusion, but a supernatural union.
...
The definition of consubstantiation, taken from the Lutheran Christian Cyclopedia, which is an online version of the original print edition published in 1954 says
View, falsely charged to Lutheranism, that bread and body form 1 substance (a “3d substance&#8221 in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present, like bread and wine, in a natural manner.
The Lutheran Confessions again reject consubstantiation in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, VII, 41-42:
41 20. Likewise, we also hand over all proud, frivolous, blasphemous questions (which decency forbids us to mention), and other expressions to God’s just judgment. Most blasphemously and with great offense ‹to the Church› such things are proposed by the Sacramentarians in a crass, carnal, Capernaitic way about the supernatural, heavenly mysteries of this Sacrament.
42 21. We utterly ‹reject and› condemn the Capernaitic eating of Christ’s body, as though ‹we taught that› His flesh were torn with the teeth and digested like other food. The Sacramentarians—against the testimony of their conscience, after all our frequent protests—willfully label us with this view. In this way they make our teaching hateful to their hearers. On the other hand, we hold and believe, according to the simple words of Christ’s testament, the true, yet supernatural eating of Christ’s body and also the drinking of His blood. Human senses and reason do not comprehend. But, as in all other articles of faith, our reason is brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ [2 Corinthians 10:5]. This mystery is not grasped in any other way than through faith alone, and it is revealed in the Word alone. [Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, ed. Paul Timothy McCain (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006), 490-91.]
19th century Lutheran theologian Charles Porterfield Krauth quotes 17th century Lutheran theologian Johann Benedict Carpzov, who has this to say:
…When this presence is called substantial and bodily, those words designate not the MODE of presence, but the OBJECT. When the words in, with, under, are used, our traducers know, as well as they know their own fingers, that they do NOT signify a CONSUBSTANTIATION, local co-existence, or impanation. The charge that we hold a local inclusion, or Consubstantiation, is a calumny. The eating and drinking are not physical, but mystical and sacramental. An action is not necessarily figurative because it is not physical. [Charles Porterfield Krauth, The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2007) 768.]
20th century Lutheran theologian Hermann Sasse, puts it a little more delicately:
It is impossible to define Luther’s doctrine as consubstantiation. Even the words ‘in the bread’, ‘with the bread’, ‘under the bread’, or ‘in, with, and under the bread’, were never regarded by Luther as more than attempts to express in these old, popular terms inherited from the Middle Ages the great mystery that the bread is the body, the wine is the blood, as the Words of Institution say. [This is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar, (Adelaide, South Australia: Openbook Publishers, 1959) 129.]

Since the phrase “in, with, and under” sometimes leads to confusion, the following two quotes are also provided:

From David P. Scaer’s essay titled “Lutheran View: Finding the Right Word” in the book Understanding Four Views on the Lord's Supper:
The Lutheran Confessions, in describing Christ’s body and blood as being “in, with and under” the bread and wine, may have allowed others to use “consubstantiation” to describe this view. These prepositions were intended to affirm that the earthly elements were really Christ’s body and blood and not to explain how earthly and divine elements were spatially related. In the earlier Lutheran Confessions, the three prepositions were not used together. [John H. Armstrong, Understanding Four Views on the Lord’s Supper (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), Kindle edition, location 1357.]

From John Theodore Mueller’s book Christian Dogmatics:
The phrase “in, with, and under” fittingly serves the purpose of repudiating the papistic error of transubstantiation and of affirming, in opposition to the error of the Reformed, the Scriptural doctrine of the sacramental union. [John Theodore Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, (St. Louis: Concordia, 1934) 521.]

To unpack consubstantiation a bit more, Krauth also declares on page 130:
II. Consubstantiation. The charge that the Lutheran Church holds this monstrous doctrine has been repeated times without number. In the face of her solemn protestations the falsehood is still circulated. It would be easy to fill many pages with the declarations of the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and of her great theologians, who, without a dissenting voice, repudiate this doctrine, the name and the thing, in whole and in every one of its parts. In the “Wittenberg Concord,” (1536,) prepared and signed by Luther and the other great leaders in the Church, it is said: “We deny the doctrine of transubstantiation, as we do also deny that the body and blood of Christ are locally included in the bread.” …The manduction is not a thing of the senses or of reason, but supernatural, mysterious, and incomprehensible. The presence of Christ in the supper is not of a physical nature, nor earthly, nor Capernaitish, and yet it is most true.”

Krauth, in a discussion related to 19th century American Presbyterian theologian William G. T. Shedd’s treatment of the history and doctrine of Lutheranism in Shedd’s book History of Christian Doctrine, mentions on page 339 and following:
…This doctrine of Consubstantiation, according to which there are two factors, viz.: the material bread and wine, and the immaterial or spiritual body of Christ united or consubstantiated in the consecrated sacramental symbols, does not differ in kind from the Popish doctrine of Transubstantiation, according to which there is, indeed, but one element in the consecrated symbols, but that is the very body and blood of Christ into which the bread and wine have been transmuted.” Nothing is more difficult, than for a thinker or believer of one school, fairly to represent the opinions and faith of thinkers and believers of another school. On the points on which Dr. Shedd here dwells, his Puritanical tone of mind renders it so difficult for him to enter into the very heart of the historical faith of the Church, that we can hardly blame him, that if it were his duty to attempt to present, in his own language, the views of the Lutheran Church, he has not done it very successfully. From the moment he abandons the Lutheran sense of terms, and reads into them a Puritan construction, from that moment he wanders from the facts, and unconsciously misrepresents.

In noticing Dr. Shedd’s critique on this alleged feature of Romanism, we would say in passing, that the Augsburg Confession does not teach the doctrine of Consubstantiation. From first to last, the Lutheran Church has rejected the name of Consubstantiation and everything which that name properly implies. Bold and uncompromising as our Confessors and Theologians have been, if the word Consubstantiation (which is not a more human term than Trinity and Original Sin are human terms,) had expressed correctly their doctrine, they would not have hesitated to use it. It is not used in any Confession of our Church, and we have never seen it used in any standard dogmatician of our communion, except to condemn the term, and to repudiate the idea that our Church held the doctrine it involves. We might adduce many of the leading evidences on this point; but for the present, we will refer to but a few. Bucer, in his Letter to Comander, confesses that “he had done injustice to Luther, in imputing to him this doctrine of Impanation,” and became a defender of the doctrine he had once rejected. Gerhard, that monarch among our theologians, says: “To meet the calumnies of opponents, we would remark, that we neither believe in Impanation nor Consubstantiation, nor in any physical or local presence whatsoever. Nor do we believe in that consubstantiative presence which some define to be the inclusion of one substance in another. Far from us be that figment. The heavenly thing and the earthly thing, in the Holy Supper, in the physical and natural sense, are not present with one another.” Baier, among our older divines, has written a dissertation expressly to refute this calumny, and to show, as Cotta expresses it, “that our theologians are entirely free from it (penitus abhorrere.)” Cotta, in his note on Gerhard, says: “The word Consubstantiation may be understood in different senses. Sometimes it denotes a local conjunction of two bodies, sometimes a commingling of them, as, for example, when it is alleged that the bread coalesces with the body, and the wine with the blood, into one substance. But in neither sense can that MONSTROUS DOCTRINE OF CONSUBSTANTIATION be attributed to our Church, since Lutherans do not believe either in that local conjunction of two bodies, nor in any commingling of bread and of Christ’s body, of wine and of His blood.” …REINHARD says: “Our Church has never taught that the emblems become one substance with the body and blood of Jesus, an opinion commonly denominated Consubstantiation.” MONSHEIM says: “Those err who say that we believe in Impanation. Nor are those more correct who charge us with believing Subpanation. Equally groundless is the charge of Consubstantiation. All these opinions differ very far from the doctrine of our Church.”

Sasse continues on page 130-31 of his book:
But the sacramental union has remained a characteristic feature of Lutheran doctrine on the Lord’s Supper, in contradistinction to Melanchthon and the Calvinists who denied this union, and found Christ’s presence not in the elements but in the sacred action in the celebration of the Supper. The unio sacramentalis is the Lutheran counterpart to Roman transubstantiation, and Late Medieval consubstantiation, with which it is often confounded. Like consubstantiation, sacramental union presupposes that bread and body, wine and blood, exist together. Bread and wine are not destroyed or ‘transubstantiated’. The difference, however, is that no theory is built up about the coexistence of two ‘substances’. The difference, over against Wyclif and his theory on remanence is this: For Wyclif, bread and wine remained what they were before; only sacramentally, that is, figuratively, they became the body and blood of Christ. For Luther, the bread is the body in an incomprehensible way; the union between the bread and the body cannot be expressed in terms of any philosophical theory or rational explanation; it is an object of faith, based solely on the words of Christ. The question which was put to him, not only by Zwingli, but also by his older adversaries, as to how the bread could be called the body of Christ if it still remained bread, was answered by Luther in pointing out the mode of speech called synecdoche. In his great controversy with Carlstadt he had already explained the words ‘This is my body’ as synecdoche. ‘This’ referred to what Jesus held in his hands, the bread, not (as Carlstadt’s impossible exegesis would suggest) to the body to which Jesus pointed. As a mother, pointing to the cradle in which her baby lies, says, ‘This is my child’, or as a man, pointing to a purse, may say, ‘Here is a hundred dollars’, so we say of the bread in a similar way, “This is the body of Christ’. This is a common mode of speech called synecdoche, an abbreviated speech in which the containing vessel is mentioned instead of its content. The objection, especially by Zwingli, that thus Luther himself did not understand the sacramental words literally, but figuratively, was refuted by Luther as not being to the point, because the reality of the body was not denied. In all other figures of speech, the words ‘body’ and ‘blood’ are understood figuratively; the synecdoche takes the reality of the elements as well as the reality of body and blood seriously.

The Lutheran view, therefore, cannot be put on the same level with the figurative understanding on the one hand, or with transubstantiation on the other hand, as was done by its critics on both sides. Luther was quite clear about the fact that the synecdoche is, also, only an attempt to describe a fact that defies human explanation. The Real Presence remained for him an inexplicable mystery. All his answers are nothing more than attempts to refute the denial of this miracle as something impossible. No human reason can explore how this miracle can take place.
We have not been commanded to inquire as to how it may come about that the bread becomes and is Christ’s body. But God’s Word is there to tell us so. With that we remain, and that we believe. [Luther quoted from Wider die himml. Propheten, WA 18, 206, 20]