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.
No. That's not the case. I know you worry about it, but that's not the case.And yet the use of that sacrament in practise is of a work which means not of grace since it is originating from the works of catholicism.
When a word has been carried into practise to have a different meaning, the world will go to the original use of the term as used in the RCC as being the correct definition of the term sacrament.
Either of the sacraments Christ ordained is a sacred work.The case is that Martin Luther wasn't done reproving from the words & works of catholicism in keeping the faith which is the good fight. Words and practises have been carried over into Protestant churches that can lead the world into believing that Protestants are doing it as a sacred work also,
No. That's not the case. I know you worry about it, but that's not the case.
Either of the sacraments Christ ordained is a sacred work.
Then I rest my case as you have just proven to me that my concern is legit.
I would call water baptism and the Lord's Supper as an ordinance.
Did anyone say that it is a necessity for salvation? Well, no. Your point was that Christ ordained it but it's not "holy."Calling water baptism a sacred work, you would be hard pressed in trying to convince anyone that believes it is a necessity for salvation that it is not.
And it is more likely that it will NOT take on that meaning.And calling the Lord's Supper a sacred work and thus holy communion can take on a meaning for which the Mass can derive from
Of course you would.
Did anyone say that it is a necessity for salvation? Well, no. Your point was that Christ ordained it but it's not "holy."
And it is more likely that it will NOT take on that meaning.
In fact, it does not.
Nor have you even attempted to show how it might.
That's because it's a theory without any substance.
But you don't care about that because your thesis is that if the Catholic Church does anything that's even similar to what the rest of us do, we must all immediately stop following the Bible. I don't consider that to be a sensible POV.
Correct. Then we are in agreement about that.I thank you for bearing with my folly, but Christ never said that water baptism was a holy work and neither was the bread and the wine. When something does not do anything at all, then it is nothing. When a thing does something as in a supernatural way, then that thing is a sacred work and thus a holy thing.
The point is that you and I do NOT believe the same thing. But my belief is not dependent upon what the Roman Catholic Church says, even though you delight in saying that.We should say what we mean and not use terms that opposes what we mean if our faith is to shine as standing apart from the "sacred works" of catholicism.
Correct. Then we are in agreement about that.
No. That's not the case. I know you worry about it, but that's not the case.
Either of the sacraments Christ ordained is a sacred work.
The point is that you and I do NOT believe the same thing. But my belief is not dependent upon what the Roman Catholic Church says, even though you delight in saying that.
Believing in the Eucharist and believing in the Lord Jesus are not at odds with each other.
John 14:15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."
John 15:20 "If they kept my word, they will also keep yours."
Catholics tend to have an all-of-the-above approach to the words of the New Testament.
The Mass is actually saying that God the Son's sacrifice for sin is the only thing that's going to prevent us from rotting separated from God for all eternity. All of God's actions are eternal. The Eucharist is not a new sacrifice of Christ. It is the same eternal sacrifice re-presented (not represented) on the altar.
Originally Posted by Tellastory
I thank you for bearing with my folly, but Christ never said that water baptism was a holy work and neither was the bread and the wine. When something does not do anything at all, then it is nothing. When a thing does something as in a supernatural way, then that thing is a sacred work and thus a holy thing.Are we?
When a thing does something as in a supernatural way, then that thing is a sacred work and thus a holy thing.
I disagree. It's more prominent in your comments than reflections upon the issue itself. Perhaps you will change now that it's been mentioned to you.I do not "delight" in saying it.
Tellastory and Albion, Blah blah blah, you both know only enough about Catholic teaching to get yourselves in trouble.
If you are so anti-Catholic why then do you accept the Books of the N.T.?
Albion, I doubt very much that you was a teacher of the Catholic faith, for if you really were a competent instructor of Christianity you wouldn't have left Jesus' Church.
Matthew 13:9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. 10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
There is an importance to that reference above because believers really should not have a teaching based on a parable.
The errant origin of the Eucharist & the Mass in scripture is based on an answer that Jesus was giving to the Jews that were not believing what He spoke plainly to them before about that bread of life.
This is what the Jews were not believing in how to receive that bread of life to have eternal life.
John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
Jesus told the Jews again about how to receive eternal life by believing in Him as that bread of life.
John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life.
From there, Jesus began speaking the hard thing to the Jews because they would not believe Him about how to receive that bread of life. This is where it becomes a parable because they refuse to believe how to receive the bread of life by coming to & believing in Him.
This is also the errant origin of the Eucharist and for the Mass.
John 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Proof that this reference above is why no church should be basing a practise on is when Jesus spoke the truth of that parable to His disciples what He had meant below.
John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
So once again, Jesus tells His disciples how to receive the bread of life and that is by believing in Him which by declaring to His disciples that some of them did not believe in Him.
He had pointed out earlier that the flesh profiteth nothing, meaning that the eating thereof profits nothing, but believing Him and His words does.
That also means eating the bread & drinking the wine profits nothing as it is to be done in remembrance of Him. That's all it is about.
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Would you rather do a practise that is based on what Jesus has said plainly to His disciples or do a practise as a continual sacrifice for sins that is based on what Jesus had said in a parable to the unbelieving Jews?
Then may the Lord help me to be clearer still.
The term "sacrament" should be dropped. Look up the definition as it varies and why it should be dropped as any seeker will see that term as it would be misrepresenting what the Lord meant for the breaking of the bread to be about.
The same goes for the Eucharist and calling communion as "Holy Communion" as well as when the RCC is naming the event as the Mass.
If a church wishes to be scriptural in her practises, then a reformation is needed, pruning away words with His help and discernment that are not definitive of her faith in Jesus Christ to truly stand apart from being identified with the works of catholicism in the eyes of the world.
The term derives from the Roman word meaning an emblem or symbol.
Did the apostles use the term ever? Answer: No.
What is the origin of sacrament as introduced into the churches? Answer: The RCC in defining grace as a work by the use of the term sacrament.
At this link below shows why sacrament should be dropped as it equates sacrament even for the Protestant to a work and not just the Lord's Supper, but to baptism as well. Then reading on, we see the works of catholicism. This is proof that Martin Luther was not done reproving from the works of catholicism in keeping the faith which is the good fight.
Sacrament | Define Sacrament at Dictionary.com
<ship>
Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
<snip>
If the Protestant churches want the Catholic Churches to do away with traditions, words, and practises that are not scriptural and that are opposing themselves by the scripture, then the Protestant churches have to lead by example.
Years ago, I read on the internet that Lutheran leaders in the British Isles now say that it was a mistake to leave the RCC which is to me, evidence of what happens when they do not get rid of the small leaven of catholicism as it will leaven into a whole lump... and yet, we are called to come out of the world so that our light will be seen by men. <snip>
I suppose, but in this case it's not been changed; it's been misrepresented by a person who's misunderstood the meaning.It does, but meanings and usages do change over time.
Reformed protestants can do as they please, apart from legalism and personal interpretation, one sect has little in common with others; the diversity in Protestantism is far greater than the diversity noted between Confessional Lutherans, RCs, the Orthodox, and orthodox Anglicans; despite the disunity among our Churches, there remains way more unity than can be claimed by protestants.
As always, these threads seem to be all about anti-catholicism.
No, you could not be more wrong (at least from the definition use by Confessional Lutherans), Sacraments/sacramental acts are not works that we do, but are what God does for us, despite us and our sinful nature; they are all about God and not about us. Sacrificial acts are things that we do; prayer, corporate worship (which would include the celebration of the Mass) good works. Such sacrificial acts are not done to earn merit, but are done as a result of our faith.
By the simplest of "the Churches" definition, that is Churches which have retained the teaching and practices of the first Cent. (we know this from writings such as the Didache), going back to Augustine; a Sacrament is a means of grace which uses outward physical signs, and conveys the forgiveness of sins. The Pastor or Priest who administers these sacraments is not doing a human work, but is fulfilling God's command, and is acting as a stand-in for Christ, in his place (in persona Christi), as it is Christ who instituted, commanded and administers the Sacraments.
As I explained above, these are not our works.
Now, I'm taking notes, thank you .... I absolutely agree; however more of a closed communion than you .... doesn't make me correct however.
As always, these threads seem to be all about anti-catholicism.
I strongly feel these threads are also about revealing to the RC their errant inferences regarding their four senses of Actualis gratia, only for starters, compared to Sola gratia. Have almost more difficulties with the modernized Lutherans with their modernized interpretations of Scriptures.
"Sacrament" is not a "catholic" word, per se; it's just a Latin word. It is the translation of the Greek word "mysterion".
And a "symbol"is not something that merely represents something else. Rather, a "symbol" is something that brings things together, and it is the opposite of "diablos", which is something that divides (which is where we get the word "devil"). And even something that "represents" something is something that re-presents something; in other words, it "presents again" and allows us to partake of that reality.
So yes, the sacraments are "symbols" and "representations". They present to us the reality behind them, and they bring us together with each other and with God.
I suppose, but in this case it's not been changed; it's been misrepresented by a person who's misunderstood the meaning.
I always have to smile at the claim made by some Lutherans--the original Protestants and, to some observers, the only Protestants--that they're to be classsified with the EO, RC, Anglicans, and anyone else who can possibly be considered Catholic instead of Protestant.
I have often wondered why there is this desire to deny their own identity.
Now, I'm taking notes, thank you .... I absolutely agree; however more of a closed communion than you .... doesn't make me correct however.
I strongly feel these threads are also about revealing to the RC their errant inferences regarding their four senses of Actualis gratia, only for starters, compared to Sola gratia. Have almost more difficulties with the modernized Lutherans with their modernized interpretations of Scriptures.
No Albion, I would hope that you would know me a bit better than that by now. Confessional Lutherans consider themselves "Evangelical Catholics"; catholic but not "Roman Catholic"; orthodox, but not "Eastern (or Oriental) Orthodox. Our theology, as confessed in the 1580 edition of the Book of Concord speaks for itself.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?