Bible Christians: If you claim that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of authority, then how do you convert those who cannot read?

[cazayoux]

Your list is somebody’s opinion of what is and what isn’t infallibly defined. Please try again.

Read the book.
… remember that you asked for the list … approved or not.
any opinions on the interpretations?

 

[rlg94086]

So, am I understanding you correctly that you believe in the Real Presence, but you don’t believe in transubstantiation?

Your link is dealing with Real Presence, your claim is that it was Transubstantiation that was “handed down” by the apostles.

Transubstantiation, and Real Presence, are two different things.

I stated:To which you replied:That’s a bit of a bait-and-switch, isn’t it; make one claim, support a different claim?

I’ll wait for statements from ECFs who were taught transubstantiation; and, keep them early
in the church.

That’s true of real presence, but they reject transubstantiation to this day, correct? And if they didn’t, Rome would reject their claims to transubstantiation, unless, of course, Rome approved of their priesthood as being valid; correct?

My claim is that transubstantiation is irrational; none of the ECFs could support my position because none of the ECFs knew anything about transubstantiation, as you’ve claimed they have, but have yet to substantiate.

 

[sandusky]

So, am I understanding you correctly that you believe in the Real Presence, but you don’t believe in transubstantiation?

I believe in neither.

 

[rlg94086]

I believe in neither.

Then you were just having fun with me. You don’t really care what the Early Church Fathers believed.

 

[sandusky]

Then you were just having fun with me. You don’t really care what the Early Church Fathers believed.

I do if you can support your claim.

Were you having fun with me by leading me to believe that you could support one thing, and then switching to the support of a different thing?

 

[rlg94086]

I do if you can support your claim.

Forgive me if I doubt you on that statement.

sandusky:

Were you having fun with me by leading me to believe that you could support one thing, and then switching to the support of a different thing?

Not at all. I believe in the Real Presence, and to me this is inseparable from transubstantiation, which both the Catholic and Orthodox Church believe in. You are hung up on a word. Just as the “Trinity” is not mentioned in the Bible, “transubstantiation” is not a word used by the Church Fathers. It’s also not the same word the Orthodox use, even though they believe the same thing.
Ignatius AD110:

the Eucharist*** is*** the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ

Justin Martyr AD151:

…as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him

Irenaeus AD189:

When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ

 

[sandusky]

rlg94086:

Forgive me if I doubt you on that statement.

OK.

rlg94086:

You are hung up on a word.

Transubstantiation is not just a word.

rlg94086:

Just as the “Trinity” is not mentioned in the Bible, “transubstantiation” is not a word used by the Church Fathers.

To compare the Trinity, which is easily proven from scripture, to the irrational claim of transubstantiation, which has no scriptural basis, is specious.

rlg94086:

It’s also not the same word the Orthodox use, even though they believe the same thing.

They recognize, as I do, that transubstantiation is more than just “a word.”

 

[Ginger2]

Cazayoux,

Thank you for the link to the infalible teaching.

Those fifteen interpretations are not up for debate among Catholics. Are there other infalible teachings and where is the complete list.

 

[Bishopite]

The point of my post is not the unity, or disunity of the Church, but with the fact that the Jews had a canon at the time of Christ, whether it was specifically named or not.

No, you are totally incorrect. Again for starters, why would the Pharisees use the entire Old Testament and the Saducees use the pentatuech? Obviously they dissagreed to what was the canon. And the East and West weren’t divided in the fourth century. The evidence from ecclessial Christian history says such.

The lack-of-charity card when there was no lack of charity—I must be making sense to you.

Uh…ok,…I didn’t show you charity? I don’t remember being that way, but the written word doesn’t always convey emotion, inflection, nor intination, so it is difficult on both sides to judge ones intent. And If I didn’t show you charity then I apologize.
But as far as you making sense to me, well all due deference and I mean no disrespect to you personally, however, your position does not pursuade me in the least nor have your answers. I’m very happy to be Catholic!

 

[Bishopite]

If you find a list, authorized by the church or not, please post it.

Yes, I will. You can remind me if I forget; life is very busy for me as I’m sure it is with you.

 

[Bishopite]

Does that mean the Holy Spirit was asleep at the wheel until Luther showed up?

I mean, in the year 5 B.L. (Before Luther), where was the Holy Spirit?

michel

Hey brother, we are on the same side! Read my profile I’m Catholic too! I’m a convert as I was a Calvinist like a few of those on this forum.
You are responding to what I said “tongue and cheek” and I totally agree with you and you pose a great question. The Holy Spirit was working in the Catholic church and did so to recognize the canon, pass down holy writ, and keep the orthodoxy as it opposed the heterodox and it defined theological doctrinal disputes.

p.s. And for those who would say Athanasius had the first canon list and was from the East, well again, the Catholic church was of one accord at that time, therefore there was no division within the Eastern and Western rites of the church, therefore there was no division at that time.

 

[Montalban]

But it is; you are fighting against your definition of my position
I think that’s foolish.

I think it’s foolish to claim to be SOLA Scriptura and be selective about letting in an authority. As I’ve noted you’ve every right to believe that mix. However that’s all the argument now you’ve offered for days; cries of indignation!

 

[Sixtus]

I’m not implying that. I’m just saying the doctrine of Bible Alone falls apart if someone ask a question like is. “Is abortion wrong?”

Well, the Bible doesn’t have that abortion is sin. It does say “thou shall not kill” it doesn’t give specifics.

The only early Christian that does forbid the use of abortion is the Didache. It states in Chapter 2 verse 3.

you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten (source: newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm )

The Didache was written around 70 AD or about 2nd or 3rd Century.

Mannyfit, I think you have a ‘hole in one’, sadly everyone else is too busy trying to get their balls out of a bunker to hear what you are saying!

So, as an informed spectator, I will just say ‘AMEN’

 

[Montalban]

No, you are totally incorrect. Again for starters, why would the Pharisees use the entire Old Testament and the Saducees use the pentatuech? Obviously they dissagreed to what was the canon. And the East and West weren’t divided in the fourth century. The evidence from ecclessial Christian history says such.

Why do they think Luther is an authority? Because *he *said so?

 

[Ginger2]

Originally Posted by Mannyfit75
“I’m not implying that. I’m just saying the doctrine of Bible Alone falls apart if someone ask a question like is. “Is abortion wrong?””

Originally Posted by Sixtus
“I think you have a ‘hole in one’, sadly everyone else is too busy trying to get their balls out of a bunker to hear what you are saying!”

I already responded to this.claim:

Post # 26:
You are dead wrong when you claim “the doctrine of Bible Alone falls apart if someone ask a question like is. ‘Is abortion wrong?’”

Exodus 21:22 is very clear. The pro-abortion gang likes to misinterpret this verse, they translate the word as “miscarriage” but, this verse really says: “If the woman gives birth prematurely, but no harm follows…”

I’ve spoken with Jewish scholars to confirm my understanding of Ex 21:22 The meaning is clear.

The Hebrew word yeled is usually used to refer to children
Gen 21:8 ¶ And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the [same] day that Isaac was weaned.

The same word is used in Exodus 21:22

How could John the Baptist be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb if he wasn’t a person, yet? (Luke 1:15).

 

[Ginger2]

Qoute Montalban post # 32:
“How about ‘is slavery wrong’? as an example!”

This is exactly why Christians should read their Bibles. There are different types of “slavery” in the Bible. None of them (supported in God’s Word) fit the Old South scenario.

Why should we be surprised when people twist Scripture to justify what they do? The Bible warns us they will do just that.

 

[Ginger2]

There is nothing lacking from Scripture that is essential to our salvation.

God will open our minds to understanding what we need to know, when we need to know, IF we are sincerely seeking His will.

Those who say they want to do what God says, but deep down are really trying to create a god in their own image will twist Scripture to their own liking.

There is nothing we can do for them except pray.

 

[Mannyfit75]

sandusky:

To compare the Trinity, which is easily proven from scripture, to the irrational claim of transubstantiation, which has no scriptural basis, is specious.

It does. I like to point out the following verse in the Bible that points that transubstantiation is Biblical.

First let us what transubstantiation is.
OSV Catholic Encyclopedia Software:

The “change of substance” of bread into the Body of Christ and wine into the Blood of Christ at the Consecration of the Mass. Although this fundamental doctrine of the Catholic Church was held by the faithful since apostolic days, the term “transubstantiation” was adopted by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, to describe the Eucharistic mystery. This was reinforced by the Council of Trent (1545-1563), which spoke of “a wonderful and singular conversion” of the Eucharistic elements.

Only a validly ordained priest can confect the Eucharist. Because of the reality of transubstantiation, reference to the Eucharistic Species as “bread and wine” is wrong. They are properly called the Body and Blood of Christ.

In plain English, during the consecration of the bread and wine is no longer bread and wine but indeed becomes the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Though the accident (appearance) remain the same as well as the taste.

This is further explain in the Gospel of John 6:53-58.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56* He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58* This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

The 70 disciples did not understand this and so they argue with Jesus.

Verse 60-71 states. Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62* Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63* It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64* But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. 65* And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”*

((continuing))

 

[Mannyfit75]

66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” 70* Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71* He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.
*

Ask yourself. Why did the disciple drew back and where no longer with him? They left because Jesus told them that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. The Gospel of Mark 14:22-25. In this passage the Gospel of John 6:53-71 becomes a reality. Jesus offer his Body and Blood to the Apostles as real food and drink.

22 * And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23* And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24* And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, * which is poured out for many. 25 Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
*

St. Paul in 1 Cor 11:23-32 called the bread and wine as the Body and Blood of the Lord.

23* * For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for * you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25* In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26* For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. * 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32* But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened * so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

I hardly think the doctrine of transubstantiation as un-Biblical. However, the symbolic meaning of the Eucharist or spiritual presence is not founded anywhere in the Bible.

 

[Ginger2]

One thing, among many, that your infallible teaching seems to overlook is that Jesus said, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life…” Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe,… And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

Jesus knew some would not believe and turn away. Jesus often spoke in parables so they would not understand.

And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. (Luk 8:10)

Yes, I believe and take that verse literally. But I also know Jesus is God, but God is not Jesus. Catholics are not literally eating human flesh and if they read the Bible without thinking they already know everything, but instead looking to the Holy Spirit to guide them, maybe they would have a clearer understanding of these verses.