Assurance of Salvation (Part II)

[pocohombre]

Old Prof…

In a recent post, you referred me back to this first post of yours. Interesting to see your background with Catholics. Did you complete RCIA back then ?
What doctrines could you not accept ?

Now regarding OSAS … what do you need to be shown, in order to be convinced. Give us your litmus test items …that if provided, would make convincing case for u.

Neat stuff you both have going . Seems on short reading that he did provide scripture references.

 

[pocohombre]

Oh, my… How much of the Early Church Fathers have you read? Christians often love talking about ‘historical’ Christianity without having the slightest clue of what that means. If you want to see the origins of Catholic dogma, look to the early Christians and their teachings. Read Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch (both disciples of the Apostles). Read Justin Martyr and Iranaeus. Read their works IN THEIR ENTIRETY (not on an anti Catholic website). They are free on the internet. The first Apology of Justin Martyr most clearly outlines early Christian dogma. If you read anything, read this.

I doubt you will find your brand of Christianity practiced among these early Christians…

Thank you I will read some. I have read on other threads I would fit in quite well with those who first carried the torch past the last passing apostle St. John (100 a.d. ?)

 

[brb3]

Their eucharist is quite valid within their own ranks as your is in yours.That’s the point. Of course there are differences, more that you could have listed. The point was they could claim universality, as you do, oneness, within their worlwide organization.

Problem is, they don’t view their Lords Supper as sacramental. They don’t take Christ’s words in John Chp. 6 in the literal sense it was intended, they don’t receive it via a priesthood confirmed by the Apostles, and they don’t even receive it as directed by scripture “as often as you meet, DO THIS in remembrance” ! So, how can they possibly say they are following teaching of Jesus on the Eucharist ?

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Thank you I will read some. I have read on other threads I would fit in quite well with those who first carried the torch past the last passing apostle St. John (100 a.d. ?)

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.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes.

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.

Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to [the will of] God.

I have confidence of you in the Lord, that ye will be of no other mind. Wherefore I write boldly to your love, which is worthy of God, and exhort you to have but one faith, and one [kind of] preaching, and one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ; and His blood which was shed for us is one; one loaf also is broken to all [the communicants], and one cup is distributed among them all: there is but one altar for the whole Church, and one bishop, with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants. Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism

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).

Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.

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.

 

[pocohombre]

Problem is, they don’t view their Lords Supper as sacramental. They don’t take Christ’s words in John Chp. 6 in the literal sense it was intended, they don’t receive it via a priesthood confirmed by the Apostles, and they don’t even receive it as directed by scripture “as often as you meet, DO THIS in remembrance” ! So, how can they possibly say they are following teaching of Jesus on the Eucharist ?

You know they feel as strongly as you do that they are following Christ’s dictates on “Remembrance”. RP was not fully separated from the other types of “presence” till when, 13th Century ?

 

[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.

 

[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.

My friend we disagree on scriptural texts .We will also disagree on church fathers. Ignatius, and Iraneus are just two .Where you sit is where you stand on an issue (or interpretation). I am aware of Iraneus listing three cities (Antioch ,Rome ,not sure of third) and the succession of head bishops in each city as an exmple) I think he suggeted you could have done a list from the tweleve apostles, at least more than the three he put forth.

 

[fhansen]

You know they feel as strongly as you do that they are following Christ’s dictates on “Remembrance”. RP was not fully separated from the other types of “presence” till when, 13th Century ?

Yes, they just don’t have any historical practice, i.e. Tradition, to back it up and finally resolve the issue. If they did, they’d throw out the merely “remembrance” model-quickly.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

PeaceInChrist;10318057:

Epistle to the Smyrneans, Chapter 7.Totally out of context .He was dealing with folks who didn"t believe Christ come in the flesh.I would have to double check, your Iganatius translation may differ from what I read last time.

I actually stated that literally right below the quote. It follows that if Christ didn’t come in the flesh, the Eucharist couldn’t be His flesh. Why else would he even bring up the Eucharist? It literally has nothing to do with the actual Incarnation (unless it is the real Flesh). I always love how Christians interpret it, though. It’s amusing. You don’t find it odd that the only Christian Churches to exist from the beginning, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, both hold to the Real Presence?

Since you deny it, it would actually be on you to point to a specific time when they started the ‘false’ teaching of the Eucharist being true flesh and blood. Good luck with that one. The only ones who claimed that were… Gnostics and I believe Arians, among other heretics. And they usually denied the True Presence because they denied the eternal divinity of Christ.

Beyond that, Justin Martyr, in his First Apology (Justin was born around 100 AD, wrote this around 150 AD, again no gap from Ignatius to him), describes the necessity of baptism, the True Presence in the Eucharist, and the Liturgy (Mass in the Roman Rite).

 

[PeaceInChrist]

My friend we disagree on scriptural texts .We will also disagree on church fathers. Ignatius, and Iraneus are just two .Where you sit is where you stand on an issue (or interpretation). I am aware of Iraneus listing three cities (Antioch ,Rome ,not sure of third) and the succession of head bishops in each city as an exmple) I think he suggeted you could have done a list from the tweleve apostles, at least more than the three he put forth.

The Apostles didn’t leave only 12 bishops. That is a rather ridiculous requirement for the Apostolic Authority, don’t you think? They left one in the major cities or large areas that they preached in, and then moved on, leaving this appointed man in their place.

And of course your interpretation will vary from mine. If you admitted that Ignatius was clearly talking about bishops and the Eucharist ( which would actually make sense of St. Paul saying that whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup unworthily is guilty for profaning the Body and Blood of Christ), you would actually be using reasoning ability and looking at Christianity in a historical fashion.

Where, exactly, do you think these ideas came from? Read the writings of early Christians. You’ll find no rejection of the True Presence, unless you read the exhortations of a Protestant preacher reviewing early Church writings.

 

[brb3]

You know they feel as strongly as you do that they are following Christ’s dictates on “Remembrance”. RP was not fully separated from the other types of “presence” till when, 13th Century ?

Nope…they will tell u that 4x’s a year ( once each quarter) is often enuf. Been there, received quarterly for many years, crackers & grape juice, …I felt no power (grace ) from receiving it.
Once I accepted the Catholic doctrine & received Eucharist sacramentally, the difference was very real. The Catholic Eucharist is the Elixir of Immortality…when received as Christ & Paul taught.

 

[pocohombre]

Yes, they just don’t have any historical practice, i.e. Tradition, to back it up and finally resolve the issue. If they did, they’d throw out the merely “remembrance” model-quickly.

They do have some. Does longevity of a tradition prove anything ? Why did it take so long to formulate RP ? When did the Mass change from a thanksgiving offering to a “sacrificial” offering ? When did we start offering to God the elements, the body and blood of our Lord, and ask Him to bless it, and not just offering up our thanks(eucharist ) for what God sacrificed for us, gave/offers to us, having a “love” feast celebration ? At best, when did we add the former to the latter ? .The last Mass I attended did both.

 

[pocohombre]

Nope…they will tell u that 4x’s a year ( once each quarter) is often enuf. Been there, received quarterly for many years, crackers & grape juice, …I felt no power (grace ) from receiving it.
Once I accepted the Catholic doctrine & received Eucharist sacramentally, the difference was very real. The Catholic Eucharist is the Elixir of Immortality…when received as Christ & Paul taught.

I am happy for you. As you know testimonies abound on both sides .I think we both would agree something is wrong with a supposed Christian heart who is not moved by the reflection/remembrance of Calvary, where His goodness sets the prisoner free and new life begins/began. I hope our Jewish friends are not offended by the thought you put forth that, at least in your experience, that remembrance is not effectual, whether it be their passover celebration of the old covenant and for some(Jewish Christians), the new also.

 

[brb3]

I am happy for you. As you know testimonies abound on both sides .I think we both would agree something is wrong with a supposed Christian heart who is not moved by the reflection/remembrance of Calvary, where His goodness sets the prisoner free and new life begins/began. I hope our Jewish friends are not offended by the thought you put forth that, at least in your experience, that remembrance is not effectual, whether it be their passover celebration of the old covenant and for some(Jewish Christians), the new also.

Well, I can speak for the S. BAPTISTS …we just thought we were honoring Christ by reinacting the Supper ( on rare occasions at our services) . Explanation for not doing it every Sunday was …it takes up 15-20 minutes time, and Pastor’s sermon suffers ( he has to cut em short). Also given as rationale…3-4 x’s yearly is all thats required, by our tradition…" the way its always been done".

 

[pocohombre]

The Apostles didn’t leave only 12 bishops. That is a rather ridiculous requirement for the Apostolic Authority, don’t you think?

Yes but who said they only left twelve ? My point was that Iraneus list three of those cities, and more could have been listed but were not because 3 sufficed as an example. Leaving Iraneus behind I pointed out there were twelve apostles ,so there were at least a possibility of twelve succession provided they alone went to a different major city. Hope i am not to ridiculous with that .Sorry

And of course your interpretation will vary from mine.

It does

If you admitted that Ignatius was clearly talking about bishops and the Eucharist ( which would actually make sense of St. Paul saying that whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup unworthily is guilty for profaning the Body and Blood of Christ), you would actually be using reasoning ability and looking at Christianity in a historical fashion.

That is uncharitable. I do not say you do not use historical and scriptural reasoning .

Where, exactly, do you think these ideas came from? Read the writings of early Christians. You’ll find no rejection of the True Presence, unless you read the exhortations of a Protestant preacher reviewing early Church writings.

Disagree. It is huge topic covering a thousand years of writings, and it is not as simple as you state . Do you find a rejection of consubstantiation ? If so when ? 1200 A.D ?

 

[pocohombre]

Well, I can speak for the S. BAPTISTS …we just thought we were honoring Christ by reinacting the Supper ( on rare occasions at our services) . Explanation for not doing it every Sunday was …it takes up 15-20 minutes time, and Pastor’s sermon suffers ( he has to cut em short). Also given as rationale…3-4 x’s yearly is all thats required, by our tradition…" the way its always been done".

Sorry you feel that way . St. Paul does admonish to do all things to the glory of God and all things are permissible and hopefully constructive .Where does one stop ? Shall it be then once a week for the baptists ? Then one might need once a day, and some several times a day, as is possible in some dioceses. Legalism is fine ? What does St. Paul say about the differences in feast days and styles of worship etc ? The spirit says be unified, meet often. Communion, one loaf, teaches that . I dare say they probably ( the baptists) met more often. Perhaps not around the “table” but certainly around Christ and His Word, and for longer periods of time, right ?

 

[pocohombre]

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

It literally has nothing to do with the actual Incarnation

Disagree …

You don’t find it odd that the only Christian Churches to exist from the beginning, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, both hold to the Real Presence?

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

.

And they usually denied the True Presence because they denied the eternal divinity of Christ.

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 ?

Beyond that, Justin Martyr, in his First Apology (Justin was born around 100 AD, wrote this around 150 AD, again no gap from Ignatius to him), describes the necessity of baptism, the True Presence in the Eucharist, and the Liturgy (Mass in the Roman Rite).

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 ?

 

[pocohombre]

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 .

 

[brb3]

You know they feel as strongly as you do that they are following Christ’s dictates on “Remembrance”. RP was not fully separated from the other types of “presence” till when, 13th Century ?

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 ?

 

[pocohombre]

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”.