Assurance of Salvation (Part II)

[brb3]

Just read some OlProf threads, at least the first 10 pages on part 1. He makes a very strong case for blessed assurance .Anyone interested take a look back .

Yes, and now we are into Part 2, of topic …we will indulge your off topic questions …until he returns to make his case anew, and re-state his core points in support of OSAS, or alternatively, tell us the Key items in Catholic arguments against, that he needs Catholics to prove to his satisfaction.

U too, might wish to join him, in this ON TOPIC endeavor !

 

[pocohombre]

And, in what century did the S. BAPTISTS get their start, and start their tradition on the Lord’s Supper ?.. and would that be before or after the Cath. CHURCH described/discussed Transubstantiation ?

Your comment again shows belief in ORAR-once right always right as far as a church is concerned. Is it not more pertinent to do what is right despite the history or record of previous generations actions ?
Is not every generation called to account for itself ? Scripture suggests this as does OT history . Does longevity prove everything ? The Philippian( and Revelations-7 churches ) warning of working out salvation was to a city church. Why could it not apply to a province, to a patriarch, to the Western church, Eastern church, Lutheran church.etc etc , …Are anabaptists their "cousins’ ? If so 300 years after Trans. So out of 2000, 300 is not so much of a disparity in timeline.

 

[brb3]

Your comment again shows belief in ORAR-once right always right as far as a church is concerned. Is it not more pertinent to do what is right despite the history or record of previous generations actions ?
Is not every generation called to account for itself ? Scripture suggests this as does OT history . Does longevity prove everything ? The Philippian( and Revelations-7 churches ) warning of working out salvation was to a city church. Why could it not apply to a province, to a patriarch, to the Western church, Eastern church, Lutheran church.etc etc , …Are anabaptists their "cousins’ ? If so 300 years after Trans. So out of 2000, 300 is not so much of a disparity in timeline.

Yes, called Transubstantiation in second Millennium …but, definition drawn/taken from John Chp. 6 & Paul’s writings on the Eucharist …1st Century Truths, not the imaginations of man.

 

[pocohombre]

Yes, and now we are into Part 2, of topic …we will indulge your off topic questions …until he returns to make his case anew, and re-state his core points in support of OSAS, or alternatively, tell us the Key items in Catholic arguments against, that he needs Catholics to prove to his satisfaction.

U too, might wish to join him, in this ON TOPIC endeavor !

Thank you .I think it has all been laid out on the table, but I have not read the other 40-50 pages of part 1 yet.

 

[pocohombre]

Yes, called Transubstantiation in second Millennium …but, definition drawn/taken from John Chp. 6 & Paul’s writings on the Eucharist …1st Century Truths, not the imaginations of man.

Again, have always stated your( CC ) stuff has rationale, and based on your ( CC ) interpretation of scripture and history. If I follow the imaginations of men, well many were highly educated Catholics, some even ordained, and quite familiar with Tradition, and early father writings.

 

[fbl9]

The Gospel according to St.Luke7:30 But the Pharisees and Lawyers, not having been baptized by him brought to not God’s purpose concerning themselves.
What the will of man bringing God’s purpose to not for themselves?
. This is the coffin of presestination as Calvin taught. This proves without any doubt without any attempt of contexting that man’s free will can bring God’s purpose of salvation to not.

Just read some OlProf threads, at least the first 10 pages on part 1. He makes a very strong case for blessed assurance .Anyone interested take a look back .

let’s see what oldprof has to say.

 

[pocohombre]

If you view the bishop under which you reside as you view Christ, and obey him, and do not follow schismatics, and believe that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ, then yes, you would fit right in with Ignatius.

Epistle to the Smyrneans, Chapter 7.

Gnostics, particularly Docetists, were claiming that Christ did not actually come in the flesh. This would thus negate the Eucharist meaning anything, because if Christ had not flesh, then logically the Eucharist couldn’t be this nonexistent flesh.

Epistle to the Philadelphians, Chapter 4.

Throughout the newly emerging Christian congregations, there were groups that went out on their own, claiming authority. Ignatius warns against them. Later, Irenaeus would also combat this by stating clearly that the only way to recognize a true church was through both the physical and theological Apostolic Succession (Irenaeus wrote around 180 AD).

Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 6

As you can see, unity, obedience to the established authority of the Apostles, and the Eucharist were quite important to Ignatius, the disciple of the Beloved Apostle.

So, yes, if you fit in line nicely with these excerpts, then you would indeed fit in nicely with historic Christianity.

Interestingly, Ignatius has Jesus as the Master and not a pope. Pretty sure the Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and most denominations have leadership (bishops or presbyters) , and teachers etc. Every city was autonomous in electing it’s bishop, unlike today.

 

[pocohombre]

let’s see what oldprof has to say.

only if he has been predestined to do so, to thwart God’s will.Not up on Calvin predestination has its place, for Christ was, and we kind of were too, or our good works were, something like that.Did the Pharisees who were not baptized take God (His purpose) by surprise ?

 

[brb3]

Interestingly, Ignatius has Jesus as the Master and not a pope. Pretty sure the Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and most denominations have leadership (bishops or presbyters) , and teachers etc. Every city was autonomous in electing it’s bishop, unlike today.

The Master is in Heaven, at right hand of Father,…

yet the HS (who proceeds from the Father & the Son)…resided in his Apostles & Church, built upon Peter (head Bishop - Papa Pope),…

and every Bishop, Pope & Priest since (duly confirmed – by their righteous Apostolic forebears).

Can those who Rebelled in 16th Century, (not unlike those in the OT Korah Rebellion against Moses)…rightly lay hold/claim to valid priestly orders ?

 

[fhansen]

They do have some. Does longevity of a tradition prove anything ?

No, as with Scripture, Tradition just has to be the real thing, and it happens that true tradition would necessarily have to date back to the beginnings of Christianity.

Why did it take so long to formulate RP ? When did the Mass change from a thanksgiving offering to a “sacrificial” offering ?

It’s always been both, according to a reading of the ECFs.

 

[pocohombre]

The Master is in Heaven, at right hand of Father,…

yet the HS (who proceeds from the Father & the Son)…resided in his Apostles & Church, built upon Peter (head Bishop - Papa Pope),…

and every Bishop, Pope & Priest since (duly confirmed – by their righteous Apostolic forebears).

Can those who Rebelled in 16th Century, (not unlike those in the OT Korah Rebellion against Moses)…rightly lay hold/claim to valid priestly orders ?

I suppose Luther.Was he not ordained ? There may have been several other ordained reformers. Not sure Iraneus proposed your head bishop postulation.He lists St. Peter And St. Paul together as co founders of Roman Church. Revelations says the church is built on the TWELVE apostles, Jesus being the chief cornerstone. St. Peter was first amongst equals is the best one could say.The Jerusalem council bears that out .We both differ on that story probably too. Where you sit is where you stand. If you are predisposed to see St. Peter as pope, you shall find it at the Jerusalem council account. If you believe him to be first amongst equal (not pope), you shall find that at the council.

 

[pocohombre]

No, as with Scripture, Tradition just has to be the real thing, and it happens that true tradition would necessarily have to date back to the beginnings of Christianity

Agree

always been both, according to a reading of the ECFs

Totally disagree-they clearly state the only proper sacfifice is one of praise hence EUCHARIST=THANKSGIVING.(Emphasis only ,not shouting my friend) .Of course at some point you will find later fathers agreeing with CC view

 

[fhansen]

Agree Totally disagree-they clearly state the only proper sacfifice is one of praise hence EUCHARIST=THANKSGIVING.(Emphasis only ,not shouting my friend) .Of course at some point you will find later fathers agreeing with CC view

Ok, who/when are you getting info from? The idea of the Eucharist as sacrifice goes back as far as I can tell.

 

[brb3]

I suppose Luther.Was he not ordained ? There may have been several other ordained reformers. Not sure Iraneus proposed your head bishop postulation.He lists St. Peter And St. Paul together as co founders of Roman Church. Revelations says the church is built on the TWELVE apostles, Jesus being the chief cornerstone. St. Peter was first amongst equals is the best one could say.The Jerusalem council bears that out .We both differ on that story probably too. Where you sit is where you stand. If you are predisposed to see St. Peter as pope, you shall find it at the Jerusalem council account. If you believe him to be first amongst equal (not pope), you shall find that at the council.

Martin and his associates, rejected the Church…and in rebellion tried to establish a NEW ROCK, named after Himself !! And within a few years, the GATES OF HELL did prevail against it …and open rebellion ensued, with tens of thousands dieing. Read about Korah and his band of 250 ‘protesting priests’ …who challenged Moses and were laid waste by God.

 

[october_baby]

Martin and his associates, rejected the Church…and in rebellion tried to establish a NEW ROCK, named after Himself !! And within a few years, the GATES OF HELL did prevail against it …and open rebellion ensued, with tens of thousands dieing. Read about Korah and his band of 250 ‘protesting priests’ …who challenged Moses and were laid waste by God.

RIGHT ON!!

 

[pocohombre]

Martin and his associates, rejected the Church…and in rebellion tried to establish a NEW ROCK, named after Himself !! And within a few years, the GATES OF HELL did prevail against it …and open rebellion ensued, with tens of thousands dieing. Read about Korah and his band of 250 ‘protesting priests’ …who challenged Moses and were laid waste by God.

But his church still stands so how did Satan prevail ?

 

[brb3]

RIGHT ON!!

Makes reasonable analogy …between OT & NT rebellions. Just look where Martin’s rebellion has lead so many into grave err, unable to agree upon scripture, splintered now into 30,000 + denominations !!

God, via his prophets, was continually reminding the Hebrews about the error of the Levite priest Korah & those who joined with him apposing Moses !!

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Because it remembers the sacrifice of our Lord’s (human) body and blood), something the Gnostics were denying.

Christ commanded that we do it. Gnostics still exist, and apparently many of them practice the ‘sacraments’. They attribute some kind of special power to them, at least according to what I can gather. The Gnostics in question obviously didn’t participate in the Catholic Eucharist. They OBVIOUSLY didn’t believe that the Eucharist was His flesh, and He felt it necessary to address that. I am really not seeing how you are getting anything else from his epistle. I will post more, however, from Justin Martyr’s Apology, to back my position up further.

Disagree …

Why? You’ve given poor arguments up to this point. You claim, on no authority whatsoever, and with NO backing from history, that Ignatius didn’t really mean what he literally said.

I find it odd that it took you 1200 years to differentiate between tran and con and several other “substaniations”.

So because they lacked the means of describing something, it didn’t exist? Then what of the Trinity? Did the Trinity not exist up until they defined Him? Or is God not a Trinity? At least you acknowledge that the Real Presence has existed since the beginning.

Which makes it plausible that they used the Remembrance rite to show the human divine sacrifice to these heretics. If they didn’t believe in His divinity ,why would you waste time on RP ? Isn’t there a much bigger issue with these heretics ?

I said they didn’t believe in His ETERNAL divinity (as far as I gather). They claim He is one of apparently many Aeons, who came to give people ‘gnosis’. They believed we can become like Him, or free ourselves from our human bodies. So they did believe that Christ was A divinity. They just didn’t believe He came in the flesh. And, seeing how important the Eucharist was to early Christians, it is no wonder that Ignatius felt the need to defend the validity of the object of their celebrations.

Other than your conjecture, you have not refuted in anyway my understanding of this Father, largely because it reads so clearly. You may continue to try, if you wish, but I doubt you’ll get very far. I will further solidify my position with excerpts from Justin Martyr’s Apology.

Is the baptism right away ? Does he speak of waiting till deathbed for baptism ? Does he speak of waiting to be Catechumenized for several years first before baptism ?
His mass is only Roman ? Is it a sacrifice or a thanksgiving ? Is he espousing RP or consubstantiation ?

You could always read the Apology. But, since you do not seem inclined to, I will post three sections for you below. Also, infant and adult baptism is a discipline. As it was realized that we are sinful from birth, infant baptism became more and more important in the Church. However, Origen speaks of it in 248 at as handed down by the Apostles: "“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” - Origen, Commentary on Romans

Many adults who wished to convert would put off baptism until a near-death moment, wishing to be completely purified by it before death, so as to speedily enter heaven instead of suffering through a cleansing. This is a faulty plan because death could be sudden, but it was nonetheless practiced in many areas.

 

[paul_c]

If you lack assurance it maybe because you base salvation it on your own merits .Early church father Mathetes, “To him, supposing they can give anything to him who stands in need of nothing, as those destitute of sense.” Martyr, “He whom is illumined is washed”.

On the contrary, a devout Catholic is focused on Loving God and Neighbor and rarely thinks about heaven. You see, those in heaven will love, and we define love as doing things for others without expecting anything in return. This is the great paradox. Those that try to do things to get to heaven will never get there because they are not loving, they are earning a prize. Rather, those that Love without seeking reward will enter heaven because that is true love. If you claim assurance of salvation without love, you will be quite surprised at the judgement.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

These are chapters from Justin Martyr’s First Apology. He was born around 100 AD, and wrote around 150 AD. He lived while Polycarp lived, who was a disciple of John (just to point out how early this was in Church history).

Chapter 65. Administration of the sacraments

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

Does any of that sound familiar? Baptism required for participation, the preparation of the gifts (Catholics still pour a slight amount of water in the wine), the Eucharistic prayer, the Great Amen, the exchange of the ‘kiss’ (we shake hands in America today), and then Communion.

Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Here, Justin explains exactly why they think the ‘bread’ is important.

Transmutation was his best attempt at an explanation in this early age of Christianity.Transmute - to change or alter in form, appearance, or nature and especially to a higher form

The teaching on the mode of change was later described more fully as Transubstantiation. Justin was remarkably close for such a lack of terminology at the time.

Continued…