Protestant errors and inventions

[LittleLambofJesus]

Your semantics games are dishonest. I've posted this several times before, maybe you should read it.

That is a rather harsh accusation me thinks. The pot calling the kettle?

 

[Zoness]

Vatican.va -- watch out for churches with their own TLD!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

III. THE EUCHARIST IN THE ECONOMY OF SALVATION
The signs of bread and wine 1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord's command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread. . . ." "He took the cup filled with wine. . . ." The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

Someday, you may ask what is meant by "specie" (because it's a very exact, technical term from Aristotle) and what is meant by "change of the WHOLE SUBSTANCE" and "transubstantiation" because these are terms from alchemy. Transubstantiation is the entire point of alchemy. Specie (or accident) is the whole point of Aristotle's theory of accidents.

As I noted earlier, Luther taught what the Eucharistic tests say. And if you read them, you'll note they say NOTHING of "specie" or "whole substance" or "change" or "transubstantiation." Nope. In fact, alchemy and "accidents" are both concepts not found anywhere in Scripture - about the Eucharist or anything else. These are views imposed upon the texts, forced into them. Where did they come from? Well, my Catholic Teachers said they came from alchemy (all the "thing" at the time this concept was invented) and from Aristotle (recently rediscovered by Catholic Scholastics). It was just a theory (one of many others) regarding the mystery of Real Presence but certainly did come to be embraced by one denomination alone (one out of the 30,000 that Catholics insist exist).

Luther taught that "bread" = bread. "Wine/cup/fruit of the vine" = wine. "Body" = body. "Blood" = blood. "Is" = is. And left the rest to mystery for that's what the Eucharistic texts do. The texts say NOTHING of alchemy's whole point of transubstantiation or Aristotle's weird theory of accidents/appearances/species. That's obvious. You, of course, MUST accept the RCC view "with docility" cuz, well, your denomination says you must. But the rest of us don't. For us, the question is not "Does my Denomination alone teach this and demand I accept it with docility?" but "is it so?" To us, truth is more important than docilic obedience to a single denomination that demands it.




.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

1. No Protestant denomination uses the Catholic strawman of Solo Toma...

2. Luther taught that the Eucharistic texts mean what they say. It's the fruit of western Catholic Scholasticism in the middle ages that invented the distinctive, unique dogma of Transubstantiation - dogmatizing the central point of alchemy called "transubstantiation" and (to get itself out of the problem that created) also dogmatized Aristotle's very weird theory of "accidents." The RCC made this all dogma in 1551 as a tool to anathematize Luther (albeit after his death) on this point since he did not regard alchemy's focus or Aristotle's theory to be dogma.




.

Why are you quoting me? Your post has nothing to do with my post and it totally ignores what I said about Luther and Calvin.

So why are you quoting it?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Why are you quoting me? Your post has nothing to do with my post and it totally ignores what I said about Luther and Calvin.

So why are you quoting it?

How come the RCs always leave out my bro Tyndale

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=1179374&page=13
Sola Scritura and William Tyndale

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Luther taught that the Eucharistic texts mean what they say.

He taught that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ and not symbolic.

So what does that tell us?

Again, read my post and if you are going to reply to it do so based on what was posted.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

How come the RCs always leave out my bro Tyndale

Why are you and others changing the topic of my post?

I made a good analogy between Luther and Calvin that relates to what I call Protestant error in regards to the Euchjarist and you and others seem to be detracting from it.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

He taught that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ and not symbolic. So what does that tell us?

That Luther taught what Scripture does (but not what alchemy and Aristotle did) and did not teach the alchemic/Aristotelian dogma "transubstantiation" as the RCC alone does.




.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

Your semantics games are dishonest.

That's what Josiah does. He plays games of semantics with complete disregard for the established definitions of doctrines and terms.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

That Luther taught what Scripture does (but not what alchemy and Aristotle did) and did not teach the alchemic/Aristotelian dogma "transubstantiation" as the RCC alone does.




.

So long as you admit that Luther taught the Real Presence and Calvin taught a symbolic nature only.

You seem obsessed with the RCC and transubstantiation. Is there a reason for this obsession? I only ask because you are constantly detracting from the conversation to the RCC.

 

[archierieus]

These errors and inventions are not Biblcal and are not part of historic Christianity.

Total Depravity of Man

That is Biblical

Enthroning the Bible in your Heart

The wording you used is not a statement of doctrine, but the concept certainly is Scriptural.

Ask Jesus into Your Heart

Nice-sounding words used by preachers, not a doctrinal statement. But the underlying concept is very Scriptural.

The Rapture

The concept of the rapture is very Scriptural. Greek word, found in Thessalonians, is 'harpagesometha' which means 'snatched away.' There are different beliefs about the timing of the rapture, however.

Altar Call

Again, not a statement of doctrinal belief. It is something done by evangelists, and certainly can be a good thing.

Eternal Security

Jesus' words in Jn. 10 have already been referenced. So long as we continue to follow the Good Shepherd, nothing can snatch us out of His hand. Only our choice can separate us from Him.

"Once Saved Always Saved"

There is Biblical support for the concept. The Bible does however refer to conditions to it. So long as we stay in connection with the living Vine, we have the continuing assurance of salvation. We also retain the right to separate ourselves and fall away.

Sola Fide - Salvation by "Faith Alone"

That is very Scriptural. The alternative is not.

Sola Scriptura - "Bible Alone"

That is very Scriptural. the alternative is not.

Dave

 

[chestertonrules]

<B>

Sola Scriptura - "Bible Alone"
​

That is very Scriptural. the alternative is not.

I'll go first:

2 Thes 2

So then, brothers, stand firm, and cling to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.</B>



Now you provide a scripture that says scripture alone is the only source for Christian truth.

Good luck!
​

 

[archierieus]

<B>


I'll go first:

2 Thes 2

So then, brothers, stand firm, and cling to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.</B>



Now you provide a scripture that says scripture alone is the only source for Christian truth.

Good luck!
​

Sola Scriptura does not teach that Scripture alone is the 'only source' for Christian truth. What it teaches is that Scripture is the TEST of all purported truth. Paul himself said that if an angel from heaven, or a church leader or even he himself were to present a different gospel, then not to believe it.

Dave

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

2 Thes 2 So then, brothers, stand firm, and cling to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

Yup, we should "cling" to what Paul, Timothy and Silas taught. The only place such is recorded is in the 13 letters of Paul.

I wonder if you notice that it says NOTHING about the "Tradition" of the RCC or LDS?

I suggest you go to the thread in GT, "What Sola Scriptura IS, What Sola Scriptura is NOT" because I suspect you are confusing the praxis with a commonly expounded Catholic and Mormon strawman.





.

 

[MamaZ]

Or yours?

John 12:32 And I if-ever may be exalted/lifted-up out of the Land all I shall be drawing to Myself.

Actually Gods truth not mine nor yours.. I used your post LLOJ cause this is where I saw what He wrote.. Please forgive me..

 

[chestertonrules]

Sola Scriptura does not teach that Scripture alone is the 'only source' for Christian truth. What it teaches is that Scripture is the TEST of all purported truth. Paul himself said that if an angel from heaven, or a church leader or even he himself were to present a different gospel, then not to believe it.

Dave

Different gospel than what? The gospels hadn't even been written yet!


Given that the Church compiled the New Testament, Augustine's take is more relevant to this discussion:

"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

 

[Meshavrischika]

that quote is just so... unbelievable it just makes me sad.

 

[Rhamiel]

Archy

Sola Scriptura does not teach that Scripture alone is the 'only source' for Christian truth. What it teaches is that Scripture is the TEST of all purported truth. Paul himself said that if an angel from heaven, or a church leader or even he himself were to present a different gospel, then not to believe it.

So if not all christian truth is in the scripture, why do you guys give us such a hard time when we say Mary was assumed into heaven?

 

[archierieus]

Different gospel than what? The gospels hadn't even been written yet!

Paul is referring to his teachings in which he presented the gospel to them. His letters were in existence at the time he wrote.

Paul did warn about a falling away which would come, and in fact he said the mystery of iniquity was already at work. He warned the believers not to deviate from what they had been taught.

Given that the Church compiled the New Testament,

Believers and leaders from all the churches certainly were involved in the recognition of God's inspiration of the books of the New Testament. The accounts so recognized were written by eyewitnesses of Christ, and in harmony with existing Scripture.

Augustine's take is more relevant to this discussion.

That is neither here nor there. At any rate, Augustine came along after the fallling away warned against by Paul the apostle. His writings are not Scripture. He was, very definitely, part of the system.

Dave

 

[chestertonrules]

that quote is just so... unbelievable it just makes me sad.

While you are sad, perhaps you could think. Thinking could turn your sadness to joy!

Face it, you accept the New Testament as authoritative.

Whose authority declared it so?