• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

one for the catholics

Status
Not open for further replies.

magisterfaust

fresh meat
Jan 2, 2008
117
15
54
england
✟15,321.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Greens
2. Some Bible scholars have pointed out that there was no scriptural basis for regarding the sacraments as essential to salvation or Christian living. Many Christians assumed that Jesus commanded the use of baptism and holy communion. But there very few New Testament references to these practices and it was argued that none of them showed any intention by Jesus that they (or any other practice) should have become fixed ceremonies.
???
 
  • Like
Reactions: Radagast

wildboar

Newbie
Jan 1, 2009
701
61
Visit site
✟23,641.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
magisterfaust said:
Some Bible scholars have pointed out that there was no scriptural basis for regarding the sacraments as essential to salvation or Christian living. Many Christians assumed that Jesus commanded the use of baptism and holy communion. But there very few New Testament references to these practices and it was argued that none of them showed any intention by Jesus that they (or any other practice) should have become fixed ceremonies.

I am not a Roman Catholic but I do hold the historic position of the church along with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox that baptism and the Lord's Supper are means of salvation. The Bible says that baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the preaching of the Gospel are all for the remission/forgiveness of sins.

If you get 10 "Bible Scholars" in a room you will probably end up with at least 11 opinions. Perhaps if they spent more time reading their Bibles they wouldn't be so confused. The purpose for which the people came to worship was to "break bread" (Acts 20:7). This was a term used very early on for the Lord's Supper and is found throughout the book of Acts.

Modern evangelicals and others have created an artificial separation between baptism of the Holy Spirit and water baptism but there is no reason to separate the two. If you take New Testament phrases such as "the washing of regeneration" and "baptism now saves us" into account there is actually quite a bit about baptism.
 
Upvote 0

wayseer

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2008
8,226
505
Maryborough, QLD, Australia
✟11,141.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
2. Some Bible scholars have pointed out that there was no scriptural basis for regarding the sacraments as essential to salvation or Christian living. Many Christians assumed that Jesus commanded the use of baptism and holy communion. But there very few New Testament references to these practices and it was argued that none of them showed any intention by Jesus that they (or any other practice) should have become fixed ceremonies.
???

The words of the ritual, which are still use in my church, are the words used by Paul - the same Paul that wrote his letters decades ahead of any Gospel.

Paul clearly had some vision which provided impetus to his theology. His theology, at least on this point, was taken up by the Gospel writers when they eventually put pen to papyrus. It would therefore appear that it was Paul that INSTIGATED the ritual of communion.

Jesus, as far as can be ascertain with any degree of certainty, did NOT baptize anyone. His followers certainly did, and Jesus did undergo the ritual at the hands of John. So, baptism was not INSTIGATED by Jesus.

To me the 'holy sacraments' are mere ritual. Ritual is important - that is not my argument. Rather, Jesus did not INSTIGATE any ritual and as such the said sacraments are therefore not essential to one's salvation.

Ritual and symbol are important - as demonstrated by Jesus' submitting himself to the baptism of John - as they play upon our collective desire to making meaning out of an apparently random and hostile environment.
 
Upvote 0

wildboar

Newbie
Jan 1, 2009
701
61
Visit site
✟23,641.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
wayseer said:
Paul clearly had some vision which provided impetus to his theology. His theology, at least on this point, was taken up by the Gospel writers when they eventually put pen to papyrus. It would therefore appear that it was Paul that INSTIGATED the ritual of communion.

So you're claiming that Jesus didn't actually do what the Gospel writers say He did?

Matthew 26:26-28 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

Are you on the quest for the historical Jesus?
 
Upvote 0

wayseer

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2008
8,226
505
Maryborough, QLD, Australia
✟11,141.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
So you're claiming that Jesus didn't actually do what the Gospel writers say He did?

Yes - in respect to what you are leading.

Matthew 26:26-28 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

Matthew was written decades after Paul wrote his letters. In all probability, Matthew in reiterating the words of Paul in 1 Cor 11:23ff (which was actually the second letter Paul sent to Corinth).

Are you on the quest for the historical Jesus?

Oh, I think I've done that little quest.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

wayseer

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2008
8,226
505
Maryborough, QLD, Australia
✟11,141.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
So if something was revealed to Paul that Jesus never did, who revealed it to him? Can someone really be considered a historic Christian who denies that the Gospels are true?

I have not denied the Gospels.

You are mixing Gospels truths with historic facts - these are two different things.

Having undertaken my journey for the historical Jesus I can appreciate the 'truth' of the Gospels a whole lot better.
 
Upvote 0

wayseer

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2008
8,226
505
Maryborough, QLD, Australia
✟11,141.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The early church father seem to have made the same "mistake" so I am in good company. All the early creeds focus on historic things that happened.

And therein lies the problem - treating the creeds as historic fact - rather than spiritual truth.

So what great 'truth' can you now understand better?

That despite the history the truth is still there be discovered - but you will have to make that journey yourself - you cannot hand your path over to others to complete.
 
Upvote 0

MrPolo

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20
Jul 29, 2007
5,871
767
Visit site
✟24,706.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
2. Some Bible scholars have pointed out that there was no scriptural basis for regarding the sacraments as essential to salvation or Christian living. Many Christians assumed that Jesus commanded the use of baptism and holy communion. But there very few New Testament references to these practices and it was argued that none of them showed any intention by Jesus that they (or any other practice) should have become fixed ceremonies.
???

How many references to these practices in the Bible do you think there are and what is the number of references that constitutes the need for a "fixed ceremony"???
 
Upvote 0

wildboar

Newbie
Jan 1, 2009
701
61
Visit site
✟23,641.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
wayseer said:
And therein lies the problem - treating the creeds as historic fact - rather than spiritual truth.

Those who wrote the creeds considered what they were writing to be historic fact. Have you read some of their writings? Why should historic fact and spiritual truth be pitted against one another?

wayseer said:
That despite the history the truth is still there be discovered - but you will have to make that journey yourself - you cannot hand your path over to others to complete.

This sounds more gnostic than Christian. Why still consider yourself a Christian?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nilloc
Upvote 0

wayseer

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2008
8,226
505
Maryborough, QLD, Australia
✟11,141.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Those who wrote the creeds considered what they were writing to be historic fact.

An assumption at best.

The world has moved on. The sun no longer rotates around the earth, more people than ever can read and write, books and information are freely available and archaeologists have still not found King Solomons Temple.

Why should historic fact and spiritual truth be pitted against one another?

I'm not the one doing the 'pitting'.

This sounds more gnostic than Christian. Why still consider yourself a Christian?

One of the more disappointing aspects of this forum is the relative consistent practice of challenging one's faith by those who find they have run out of arguments. You are engaging in ad hominem attack - rather than attack the question you transfer you attack to the person.

Under normal forum rules such attacks are banded. But as CF is essential a fundamentalist forum the mods allows such methods.

This discussion is over.
 
Upvote 0

Bobinator

Senior Member
Jul 30, 2007
1,660
141
✟26,899.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In John 3:5, Jesus said, “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Jesus was speaking primarily of spiritual things. Yes, the act of water baptism is important and something that we should do as a public declaration of our faith and dedication to God, much like participating in a wedding ceremony to get married. But the more important thing is repenting and being baptized in the Holy Ghost. Water is often a type and shadow of the Holy Spirit. I know of a certainty that physical water is not a strict requirement for being saved. Otherwise, bedridden individuals would be doomed. The thief on the cross was saved when he repented. He was never baptized in water. I’ve personally known people who received their salvation on their death bed, and others who have received their baptism in the Holy Spirit before they actually did their physical baptism.

Keep in mind what Jesus and the apostles established in reference to following the letter of the Law-

Colossians 2: [16]- “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:[17] Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. “

Hebrews 10:1- “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.”

(In other words, following the Law never made anyone perfect. But being led by the Spirit of God will).

Jesus said in John 4:24- “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

These scriptures do not directly relate to your question, but it makes the point clear that what matters to God is walking in the Spirit, not walking after the ways of the flesh.

Regarding Holy Communion, we are not bound to do exactly how Jesus did it, or the letter of the law, so-to-speak. There’s nothing “magical” about communion. The Lord simply commanded us to break bread with one another often and to remember what he did on the cross. This is the intent of his commandment. Ceremony means nothing to God. It’s what happens in Spirit and in Truth. Bread and wine were also staples which they ate every day. If Jesus came today, he could just as well have used a hamburger and a diet coke.;)

Remember, Jesus spoke very negatively about the Pharisees looking good on the outside, but being filthy and abominable on the inside. It’s not the appearance of things. It’s the true substance that counts.

Sorry for the font size. This cut and paste thing isn't working right.
 
Upvote 0

wildboar

Newbie
Jan 1, 2009
701
61
Visit site
✟23,641.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
wayseer said:
An assumption at best.

It's not an assumption, it's based on my reading of the church fathers and those who argued over the doctrines of the church.

wayseer said:
The world has moved on. The sun no longer rotates around the earth, more people than ever can read and write, books and information are freely available and archaeologists have still not found King Solomons Temple.

So the sun used to rotate around the earth but doesn't anymore? Modern science has proved Copernicus wrong. It is realized by serious scientists that it is completely arbitrary which place you pick as a middle and what is rotating around what. The Bible does not make claims about whether the sun or moon revolve around each other--some have tried to say that it does but I believe they are taking the passages out of context. At any rate, the creeds say absolutely nothing about it. More people being able to read and write does not mean that people will find King Solomon's temple. If there are remains of it, they are probably underneath the dome of the rock and archeologists aren't allowed inside. Jesus said that not one stone would be left upon another and so it's not a suprise that it would be absent.

wayseer said:
One of the more disappointing aspects of this forum is the relative consistent practice of challenging one's faith by those who find they have run out of arguments. You are engaging in ad hominem attack - rather than attack the question you transfer you attack to the person.

Under normal forum rules such attacks are banded. But as CF is essential a fundamentalist forum the mods allows such methods.

This discussion is over.

I have not run out of arguments, you have left before even giving any real argument. I am not engaging in an ad hominem either. My questions about you being a gnostic was not meant to disprove your claims that historical facts are completely separate from Gospel truths. I never said that you are a gnostic, therefore you believe a bunch of messed up things and everything you say is worthless. My question had to do with how someone can be a Christian in the historical sense of the word and deny historical facts that the Gospel writers present since you claim to be a Christian. So far it appears that you general approach seems to be much more within the heritage of the gnostics than with the pale of orthodox Christianity.
 
Upvote 0

wildboar

Newbie
Jan 1, 2009
701
61
Visit site
✟23,641.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
bobinator said:
Yes, the act of water baptism is important and something that we should do as a public declaration of our faith and dedication to God, much like participating in a wedding ceremony to get married.

The Bible never says baptism is something we do. The Bible says we are baptized--it uses a passive verb. The Bible never says it is a public declaration of our faith or dedication to God. It refers to baptism as the "washing of regeneration" and it speaks of the "baptism that now saves us." Even in a wedding ceremony, the ceremony is not just a public declaration. When the minister says, "I now pronounce you husband and wife," the man and the woman really become husband and wife.

bobinator said:
I’ve personally known people who received their salvation on their death bed, and others who have received their baptism in the Holy Spirit before they actually did their physical baptism.

People can be given the gift of faith prior to baptism but in baptism faith is given just as it is given in the preaching of the Gospel.
hese scriptures do not directly relate to your question, but it makes the point clear that what matters to God is walking in the Spirit, not walking after the ways of the flesh.

bobinator said:
Regarding Holy Communion, we are not bound to do exactly how Jesus did it, or the letter of the law, so-to-speak. There’s nothing “magical” about communion. The Lord simply commanded us to break bread with one another often and to remember what he did on the cross. This is the intent of his commandment. Ceremony means nothing to God. It’s what happens in Spirit and in Truth.

Holy Communion is not something we do. Baptism and Holy Communion are not commandments to be followed, they are gifts of God. Jesus says "This is my body given for you." Jesus says, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." He says it's for the remission of sins. He says its His body. He says its His blood.
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
16,903
4,250
Louisville, Ky
✟1,020,437.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married

Regarding Holy Communion, we are not bound to do exactly how Jesus did it, or the letter of the law, so-to-speak.

I'm not sure anyone does the rite of Holy Communion just as Jesus did it. Jesus had a small group of christians with him while we now have large groups in most cases. We still use the bread and wine but in small portions, but it is not the size which matters but what spiritually occurs.

There’s nothing “magical” about communion.
Communion is not magical it is "spiritual". I have been physically healed through the Eucharist and spiritually blessed.
The Lord simply commanded us to break bread with one another often and to remember what he did on the cross. This is the intent of his commandment.

There is nothing simple about what Jesus gave us. If it were simple why did Paul chastise the Corinthians for taking it for granted?
1 Corinthians 11:
20. When you meet in one place, then, it is not to eat the Lord's supper,

21 for in eating, each one goes ahead with his own supper, and one goes hungry while another gets drunk. 22 Do you not have houses in which you can eat and drink? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and make those who have nothing feel ashamed? What can I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this matter I do not praise you.
Ceremony means nothing to God.
That would depend for the reasons in the ceremony. Celebrating the Eucharist improperly is sinful.

26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
It’s what happens in Spirit and in Truth. Bread and wine were also staples which they ate every day. If Jesus came today, he could just as well have used a hamburger and a diet coke.;)

It is what happens in Spirit and Truth, but we should never take the body and blood likely. The Eucharist has always been a central part of our christian life. Jesus came in body and blood and lived the life which none of can live. It is his body and blood, which he sacrificed for us, so that we can become worthy of entering heaven.

31 If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; 32 but since we are judged by (the) Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 33 Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that your meetings may not result in judgment. The other matters I shall set in order when I come.
Remember, Jesus spoke very negatively about the Pharisees looking good on the outside, but being filthy and abominable on the inside. It’s not the appearance of things. It’s the true substance that counts.


This is true and the reason most Churches emphasize the spiritual meaning of the Eucharist.

Yarddog
 
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,446
375
72
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟53,345.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
[quote=magisterfaust;50383254]2. Some Bible scholars have pointed out that there was no scriptural basis for regarding the sacraments as essential to salvation or Christian living. Many Christians assumed that Jesus commanded the use of baptism and holy communion. But there very few New Testament references to these practices and it was argued that none of them showed any intention by Jesus that they (or any other practice) should have become fixed ceremonies.
???[/quote]

Some Bible scholars??? There are some Bible scholars that would deny just about anything that is held by Christians throughout the centuries. There are some Bible scholars who deny the deity of Christ, or the resurrection of Christ, or the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. I once read that some “Bible Scholar” once said that Jesus and apostles were homosexuals!

The Bible is very clear that Jesus instituted holy communion and baptism. It matters not how often it is in the Bible. There is a false assumption that if it is only mentioned one or two times that it is not important. That is not true. The apostles and other sacred writers of scripture wrote to deal with controversies at their time. For instance, we would have no knowledge of Paul’s view of the gift of tongues if the Corinthian were not abusing this gift. So the sparcity of references on a subject could be because that subject was widely believed and practiced without any controversy.

Still, there are clear verses in the Bible about the importance of baptism and communion.

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!

John 3:5

We must be born of water and Spirit.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.
Mark 16:16

Here, Jesus clearly states that we must believe and be baptized in order to be saved.

who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.
1 Peter 3:20, 21

Although not Jesus himself, Peter was a close apostle to Jesus. Here, Peter compares the water at the time of Noah’s ark and the waters of baptism. Just as Noah and his family are saved through water, so are we saved through the waters of baptism

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?
38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.




Acts 2:37. 38

The very first public sermon preached after the birth of the Church. The people were convicted of their sins, and asked Peter what they should do. Peter lays it out clearly: First they must repent and be baptized. Second, this will lead to the remission of their sins. Third, they will receive the Holy Spirit. So remission of sins and the receiving of the Holy Sprit comes after they repent and are baptized.



26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Matthew 26:26 – 29


22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take ye: this is my body.
23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Mark 14:22-24

19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.

Luke 22:19 – 22

The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) have only a few things in common – the feeding of the 5,000, the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the Lord’s Supper.


23 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;
24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of
me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.
30 For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep.




1 Cor 11:23 - 30

This is the only time Paul retells exactly what happened when Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper. He did not do this for any other event in Jesus’ life.

Also, Paul said that receiving it unwoetthily can lead to sickness and death. That shows how imporant it us




And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers

Acts 2:42

The breaking of the bread was the term for the Lord’s Supper. The first Christian were devoted to it, along with teaching and fellowship.
 
Upvote 0
J

JohnDeereFan

Guest
2. Some Bible scholars have pointed out that there was no scriptural basis for regarding the sacraments as essential to salvation or Christian living. Many Christians assumed that Jesus commanded the use of baptism and holy communion. But there very few New Testament references to these practices and it was argued that none of them showed any intention by Jesus that they (or any other practice) should have become fixed ceremonies.
???

I am in no way defending Catholicism, but Christians consider baptism and the Lord's Supper to be ordinances of the church because the Bible does indicate that they are to be ordinances of the church.
 
Upvote 0

visio

Member
May 24, 2007
94
2
New York
✟15,218.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
It is why the reformers stood up and many died at the stake, because Catholicism teaches tradition OVER the Bible. They freely admit this... especially when talking of the Sabbath vs Sunday.
I forget which reformer, I believe it was Tyndale, when a Catholic doctor was arguing with him to recant he stated bluntly (in other words)
"in a contest between the traditions of the Church and Scriptures we will always accept the former"

The Catholic church states elsewhere that tradition and scriptures go hand in hand... we know from their teachings that Catholic tradition and biblical teaching are far from harmonious.

I am not ranting against Catholics, I am presenting the truth on the Catholic church itself. Catholicism boldly proclaims tradition as a higher standard then the Bible and where tradition can and does according to Catholicism interpret the Bible.

I do need to clear up one point here though, Baptism is not bad theology or unbiblical. Infact it is very much Biblical. Christ said in Matthew 28:19 that we are to go into all the world "baptizing". If you study the Bible you find Baptism is a part of Christianity. Christ was baptised as an example for us... baptism is a sign of laying our old lives down and a new life in Christ. Christ never sinned so the only reason for him to be baptized was as an example.

2. Some Bible scholars have pointed out that there was no scriptural basis for regarding the sacraments as essential to salvation or Christian living. Many Christians assumed that Jesus commanded the use of baptism and holy communion. But there very few New Testament references to these practices and it was argued that none of them showed any intention by Jesus that they (or any other practice) should have become fixed ceremonies.
???
 
Upvote 0

BigNorsk

Contributor
Nov 23, 2004
6,736
815
67
✟33,457.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I am in no way defending Catholicism, but Christians consider baptism and the Lord's Supper to be ordinances of the church because the Bible does indicate that they are to be ordinances of the church.

I don't like to use the term ordinances because an ordinance is a law. And law condemns us, it doesn't save us. And so by speaking of ordinances, one is simply moving from having one set of laws during the Old Testament and another set of laws for the New Testament.

Instead, I understand baptism and the Lord's Supper not through law, but through grace. As God's gift to us. As the Gospel.

That gospel is proclaimed through baptism and through the Lord's Supper. They are not new laws to obey. But gifts to receive.

Marv
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.