Protestant errors and inventions (3)

Root of Jesse said:

To God, there is no space and time. The Sacrifice exists now, it exists in the future, it exists in the past. Christ's sacrifice works in the past, the present, the future. We celebrate the sacrifice of Christ. Our worship of Him is a re-presentation of His one sacrifice. It is not a past event.

Click to expand...

Yes, what Albion said.

Stryder06 said:

He is. Ever think that we're living inside of His time, instead of Him living outside of ours?



Make more sense than this.



Don't think that's what I said. In short, all we have is today. Yesterday is gone and the things with it and tomorrow hadsn't happened yet. Christ isn't still being sacrificed in some strange time loop continuum



No, it just doesn't make sense. You haven't actually offered a "how" you're just saying what it is. I want to know how you're participating in a sacrifice that isn't occuring. If you're going to say "It's a mystery" than just say that.

Click to expand...

We have today. God has eternity. His sacrifice happened at a place in our time, but not in His time, but His eternity. Everything to God is now. Today and 2000 years ago and 200000 years ago are the same to God. So we enter into His sacrifice, his one sacrifice.

I don't know how, if I could explain it, I'd have the universe in the palm of my hand. We don't claim to know how. We claim to know that.

bbbbbbb said:

I assuredly am willing to think of every saint as a priest, but object to the notion that some priests are worthy of the title, but the rest are not. Your church takes it several steps further in according special titles such as bishop, archbishop, cardinal, and pope to those accorded greater honor than "priests", which they have accorded to themselves.

Click to expand...

Why do you think a bishop, archbishop (which is a bishop with more responsibility) or a cardinal (which is a bishop with more responsibility) or a pope (which is a bishop with more responsibility) has greater honor? They only have more souls on their hands that they are responsible for. I dunno, personally, I would not want to be in one of their places. I wouldn't even want the responsibility of being a parish priest.

A bishop isn't holier than a priest. He just has more responsibility than a parish priest. He's shown the capability of leading a larger group of sheep, but not necessarily that he's better.

Root of Jesse said:

We have today. God has eternity. His sacrifice happened at a place in our time, but not in His time, but His eternity. Everything to God is now. Today and 2000 years ago and 200000 years ago are the same to God. So we enter into His sacrifice, his one sacrifice.

Click to expand...

How do you know this to be true? While I don't believe God perceives time the way that we do I don't think he's sitting on His throne and watching events that have already happened, continue to happen. Once something is done, it is done. It isn't "done" within time but "constant" in eternity. When I look at the bible I see God operating in time. I see Him doing things at an appointed time and letting us know that He is with us in time.

Eternity is not some vacuum devoid of time, it's simply time neverending.

I don't know how, if I could explain it, I'd have the universe in the palm of my hand. We don't claim to know how. We claim to know that.

Click to expand...

But you can't claim to know that this is for certain. It's a guess and I'm trying to figure out what that's based on. If what you say is true you do realize that means that Christ is eternally sacrificed right? Which would make him eternally dead. That's a bit of an issue if I do say so.

Root of Jesse said:

Why do you think a bishop, archbishop (which is a bishop with more responsibility) or a cardinal (which is a bishop with more responsibility) or a pope (which is a bishop with more responsibility) has greater honor? They only have more souls on their hands that they are responsible for.

Click to expand...

You're really going to say that the Pope doesn't receive more honor than your average priest?

bbbbbbb said:

I assuredly am willing to think of every saint as a priest, but object to the notion that some priests are worthy of the title, but the rest are not. Your church takes it several steps further in according special titles such as bishop, archbishop, cardinal, and pope to those accorded greater honor than "priests", which they have accorded to themselves.

Click to expand...

The comments in the post above are inaccurate insofar as they do not take into account the following information.

The Greek word for priest is ᾿ἱερεύς but it is seldom used of new testament church leaders. In English the only word that has come to us from this Greek word is hierarchy. But priest (which comes from πρεσβυτέρο&#965 took on a double task and came to mean both a ἱερεύς and a πρεσβυτέρου. Thus priest came to be seen not only as a presbyter but also as a hierarch. Elder is a common modern translation for the Greek word πρεσβυτέρου (presbyter is the English version of the word). In English the word "priest" is derived from πρεσβυτέρου - you can check that in a good English dictionary by looking up the etymology of the word "priest".

Bishop is a biblical title - some English bible translations use "overseer" instead of "bishop" to translate the Greek word ἐπίσκοπον (episcopon). You can find it in the KJV and in a number of modern English bibles. So Catholics using "priest" and "bishop" is biblical.

Archbishops are just bishops in larger diocese (called archdiocese). While cardinal carries the idea of a hinge, or a pivot, upon which a structure turns. Thus a cardinal is a bishop who serves as pivot for turning from a deceased pope to a new pope. Cardinals are still only bishops. Their only distinction is that they elect a new pope when the time comes for such an election.

It is also significant that in English these issues are compounded by the English language itself, while in Greek, Latin, Italian, French and other languages no such difficulties exist because the ancient distinction between ἱερεύς , πρεσβυτέρου, and ἐπίσκοπον were maintained. And it ought to be noted that the majority of Catholics are not native English speakers nor does that Catholic Church write theology primarily in English so the words and terms used in Latin and French as well as Italian (which are the main languages used in Catholic theology) are not always strictly differentiated as they are in Latin etcetera.

tadoflamb said:

I'm starting to think there should be a separate list for protestant errors and inventions about Catholicism.

The pope interprets scripture for the faithful
The Catholic Church re-sacrifices Jesus
The Catholic Church invented denominationalism
The pope's opinions are inspired

Click to expand...

So, you too are in agreement. If not, what's your point?

Root of Jesse said:

Well, #2 is not gone, because we do make a sacrifice. It's the one made at Calvary.

Regarding #3, are you saying that you don't believe the Bible alone holds everything we're to believe as Christians?

Click to expand...

Well, according to MoreCoffee RC does not make a sacrifice. Maybe RCers could get on the same page, less they be accused of being a Protestant.

Re #3, true. What do you think the apostles left out that is necessary to believe as Christians? Remember what Irenaeus said about those who think they improve on the apostles ...

Root of Jesse said:

To God, there is no space and time. The Sacrifice exists now, it exists in the future, it exists in the past. Christ's sacrifice works in the past, the present, the future. We celebrate the sacrifice of Christ. Our worship of Him is a re-presentation of His one sacrifice. It is not a past event.

Click to expand...

Another scripture contradiction. It says He suffered once, then sat down. RC has a figure eternally on the cross.

Root of Jesse said:

Why do you think a bishop, archbishop (which is a bishop with more responsibility) or a cardinal (which is a bishop with more responsibility) or a pope (which is a bishop with more responsibility) has greater honor? They only have more souls on their hands that they are responsible for. I dunno, personally, I would not want to be in one of their places. I wouldn't even want the responsibility of being a parish priest.

A bishop isn't holier than a priest. He just has more responsibility than a parish priest. He's shown the capability of leading a larger group of sheep, but not necessarily that he's better.

Click to expand...

You have, at least, that right.

1. Believer's baptism as a public testimony to one's faith but not as the washing away of one's sins nor as the means by which God brings about the birth from above.
2. Covenant baptism as a sign and symbol of inclusion into the new covenant community but not as the means by which God gives sanctifying grace.
3. The Lord's supper as sign and symbol but not as the body and blood of the Lord.

1 true (the alternative is to view how Pope Stephen and his descendants (what is RC today) accept heretical baptism as on par with Christian (Catholic) baptism)

2 duplicate
3 true (the alternative is the 'just so' statements of a glorified bishop's (aka pope) opinion feeding from non Catholic sources)

PS. I use Catholic like the early church did against Rome's view of things

MoreCoffee said:

The comments in the post above are inaccurate insofar as they do not take into account the following information.

The Greek word for priest is ᾿Ιησοῦς but it is seldom used of new testament church leaders. In English the only word that has come to us from this Greek word is hierarchy. But priest (which comes from πρεσβυτέρο&#965 took on a double task and came to mean both a Ιησοῦς and a πρεσβυτέρου. Thus priest came to be seen not only as a presbyter but also as a hierarch. -snipped the rest because it follows from this admission and is therefore more erroneous bishop opinion-

Click to expand...

"Came to mean" is simply to say that the apostles did not originally mean it that way. St. Peter knew nothing of this "came to mean".

Standing Up said:

The Roman Church invented denominationalism.

Click to expand...

Standing Up said:

1. Believer's baptism as a public testimony to one's faith but not as the washing away of one's sins nor as the means by which God brings about the birth from above.
2. Covenant baptism as a sign and symbol of inclusion into the new covenant community but not as the means by which God gives sanctifying grace.
3. The Lord's supper as sign and symbol but not as the body and blood of the Lord.

1 true (the alternative is to view how Pope Stephen and his descendants (what is RC today) accept heretical baptism as on par with Christian (Catholic) baptism)

2 duplicate
3 true (the alternative is the 'just so' statements of a glorified bishop's (aka pope) opinion feeding from non Catholic sources)

PS. I use Catholic like the early church did against Rome's view of things

Click to expand...

If someone is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, how can it be a heretical baptism?

Regarding your PS, so do we.

Standing Up said:

Yes, only one. Never to be repeated at some OT-type Levite priest standing at your altar.

Click to expand...

It's not repeated. We do the same thing the Israelites do at Passover. They enter into the one and only Passover.

tadoflamb said:

I hear you. If I believed what they say about the Church, I wouldn't want to be Catholic either.

Click to expand...

The Vatican Archives house an Annunaki UFO.

You will be assimilated.

[youtube]SmRuLI6QQiY[/youtube]

Gee... Not to mention all those Pentecostal errors.

Spiritual experiences would happen as stated in Wesley’s journal from Jan. 1, 1739: “About sixty of our brethren until three in the morning, the power of God came mightily on us, insomuch that many cried out for exceeding joy, and many fell to the ground.” John Wesley prayed, “Lord send us revival without its defects but if this is not possible, send revival, defects and all.” Whitefield wrote of many falling to the ground, trembling exceedingly with strong convulsions. People fell down, cried out, trembled with convulsive twitchings. Sinners dropped down, shrieking, groaning, crying for mercy, convulsed, agonizing, fainting, falling down in distress or in raptures of joy! The noise was like a roar of Niagara. The vast sea of human beings as agitated by a storm. Seized with convulsive jerking all over. It is to note that the Cripple Creek Camp Meeting in Wythe County, VA, formed in the 1740’s, not long after Wesley’s Aldersgate Street experience, and these fires are still maintained in various mountain churches to this day.

I remember as a lad going to the old Sunnyside Pentecosal Holiness church in between two tall mountains here in southwest Virginia. The song service were very lively. People would shout, run the aisles, fall out in the spirit, and have alter services into the wee parts of the morning. I remember that people would take out the doors running, run down the road a piece and then come back.

And then the trip home from revival and the kadydids would be as if they were singing praises unto the Lord, joyful fellowship among the kinfolk, and then going to bed as tucked in by the sweet angels themselves. And enjoying quality sleep to awakin to the smell of a fresh cooked breakfast.


Aw... Those Pentecostal errors... How I miss them!

Root of Jesse said:

It's not repeated. We do the same thing the Israelites do at Passover. They enter into the one and only Passover.

Click to expand...

So it is a memorial? The Passover is.

Ex. 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

The death angel did not visit in subsequent years requiring protection. You argue for a Protestant view, even Zwinglian.

Standing Up said:

Never to be repeated at some OT-type Levite priest standing at your altar.

Click to expand...

An altar is a prism through which we, apparently in time, directly see, hear, smell, taste and touch the one and only sacrifice that was, is and will be.

The Jesus should have said, "It's only just begun!" rather than "It is finished!"